PRIVATE BUSINESS

City of London (Ward Elections) Bill

Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
	To be further considered on Thursday 14 March.

Oral Answers to Questions

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Recycling

Andrew Selous: If she will make a statement regarding the implementation of European recycling directives.

Margaret Beckett: The United Kingdom has participated fully in the negotiation and implementation of European Community measures to increase recycling.

Andrew Selous: Will the Secretary of State explain why other European countries, such as Germany, were able to prepare in advance for the ozone depleting regulations, with the result that they did not incur the expenses that the UK has incurred? My county council, Bedfordshire, has had to spend £810,000 this year to store fridges, as no UK treatment facilities are available. Will the right hon. Lady assure the House that the Government will not be caught unawares in relation to any future European recycling directives?

Margaret Beckett: First, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that three other member states had made preparations that allowed them to handle fridges in the way that he suggested, but of course they did not do so without incurring expense. Twelve member states, including the United Kingdom, were awaiting further guidance from the Commission.
	I share the hon. Gentleman's view that it is important that we get clear acceptance and understanding not only of the wording of legislation and regulations, but of what they mean—what the implications are. I assure him that we are more than eager to engage in such discussions in order to clarify all these issues before regulations are made or legislation implemented. That has not always been the case under previous Governments, but this Government engage at a stage when planning and discussion are under way.

Eric Illsley: As my right hon. Friend is aware, there are very few companies throughout the European Union that provide the machinery for removing refrigerants from refrigerators, and there was a backlog of orders for such machines from companies throughout the EU, including Britain, wanting to take advantage of the opportunities of recycling. Will the procedure require licensing in Britain, and how will that affect companies trying to set up facilities in the UK to recycle fridges?

Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend is right; the recycling does require licensing, but there are procedures in place, handled by the Environment Agency, to deal with that. My hon. Friend and the House may like to know that, as of this week, we are expecting the arrival of the first mobile facility for carrying out this type of recycling, and we have every reason to hope that other plant will be in place by June.

Andrew George: Although we accept the Minister's sincerity, does she accept that her Department faces an even worse crisis? A new wave of European legislation to which Britain has signed up is fast coming along, and her Department is as unprepared for that as it was for the directive that resulted in 250,000 fridges being stockpiled. Her Department seems equally unprepared for the hazardous liquid waste directive, which must be implemented in four months, and it is doubtful that the Department will be prepared for forthcoming directives on abandoned cars, waste from ships, hazardous waste, electronic and electric goods and many others. Does she accept that her Department does not have the capacity to cope, and that Britain runs the risk of being seen as the laggard in Europe in respect of waste management and recycling?

Margaret Beckett: No, I do not accept that; it is completely unjustified. The hon. Gentleman rolled into his observations a number of different sets of regulations that are all at different stages of discussion and implementation. For example, the waste electrical and electronic equipment directive is still under discussion in the European Parliament, so we are some distance away from that. I entirely share his view that it is right that we take on board the implications of these issues and prepare for them as thoroughly as we can.
	The end of life vehicles directive is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that extensive discussions and consultations are under way to make sure that we implement properly and proportionately the legislation and the regulations to which we have agreed. I can also assure him that there is no truth whatever in the suggestion that the UK is a laggard in these matters. Every member state has the same concerns and frequently the same difficulties as people experience in this country.

Bill O'Brien: May I remind my right hon. Friend that the delay in implementing the European directives was the responsibility of the former Tory Government, who delayed the introduction of any such regulations for three years? Will WRAP, the waste and resources action programme, have some influence in determining the markets for recycled materials, which is one of the main problems that the Government face?

Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend is right that WRAP is a very important organisation that was set up by the Government exactly in order to work on and develop the market for recycled products. One of the things that people often leave out when they discuss this issue is that it is all very well to talk about recycling and finding new markets, but it must happen in reality. He is right that the programme is an important and useful initiative that has been taken by the Government. He is also right to say—I realise that this was not popular with everyone in the House—that, with regard to the implications of European legislation in many fields, we have had to grapple with the knock-on effects of delay and the previous Government's inability to engage in negotiation. That is not a course of action that we intend to follow.

Peter Ainsworth: I am delighted that the Secretary of State has come here to answer questions on fridges; we are used to the dithering performance of the Minister for the Environment. Perhaps she can clear something up for us. The Minister has blamed the European Commission for failing to keep him informed of the consequences of the directive on the recycling of fridges. As she will know, the Commission has vehemently denied that and blames the Government for the fridge mountain. As they cannot both be telling the truth, which one of them is not doing so?

Margaret Beckett: I see that it is my right hon. Friend's turn to be abused by the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman. It is the first time that I have heard anybody call my right hon. Friend dithering, and I have certainly never seen any evidence to suggest that he has such a problem—forthright and determined, yes, but dithering, no. On the handling of the fridges legislation, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is a very clear difference of opinion between ourselves and the Commission. I remind him that, as I said, 12 member states had not taken action to implement the directive, while 12 clearly had concerns about precisely what it meant.

Peter Ainsworth: I am sorry, but that answer is hopelessly inadequate. There is a very serious problem with fridges, which are potentially hazardous, not least because they contain CFCs, and the Government are doing absolutely nothing about it. These days, one is about as likely to see a field full of fridges as one full of sheep. Given that, as we have heard, there are new directives in the pipeline dealing with televisions, personal computers and cars, is not there a real danger that the fridge mountain could turn into a whole mountain range of discarded possessions?

Margaret Beckett: No, there is no evidence of a huge build-up of difficulties in respect of fridges. The hon. Gentleman says that the Government are doing nothing, but I am sure that he is aware that we have already made some £6 million available to local authorities—

Jonathan Sayeed: Piffling.

Margaret Beckett: As the hon. Gentleman's party is committed to cutting public expenditure, I am not quite sure how much he would make available.
	The money is intended to deal with the issue up to the end of March, and we will discuss the matter further with local authorities. There is no evidence of a vast and growing problem or of great difficulty. It is a pity that Opposition Members are trying to create such a problem when one does not exist.

Energy

Joan Ruddock: If she will make a statement on the energy review published by the performance and innovation unit.

Margaret Beckett: I welcome the review as a valuable contribution to the debate on how best to help the UK move towards a low-carbon economy in response to our internationally agreed climate change goals. It is too early for the Government to have reached a view on all the review's many recommendations, but we will consider them very carefully. As has been announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, we will hold a full public consultation leading to the publication of a White Paper later this year.

Joan Ruddock: I thank my right hon. Friend for her reply. As Government investment in renewables is running at about £100 million a year and in energy conservation at about £200 million year, and as her estimates of the costs of cleaning up nuclear waste from the nuclear programme suggest that they will be £85 billion, will she tell her colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry that greater political will and more investment in energy conservation and renewables could enable us to meet any perceived energy gap, and that the environmental imperative is to say no to any new nuclear capacity?

Margaret Beckett: As my hon. Friend rightly says, the Government are committed to making much more substantial investment in renewables than in the past and to investment in energy conservation. We fully recognise the enormous contribution that those steps can make towards helping us to meet our climate change obligations. My Department has instigated a thorough consultation on the handling and treatment of radioactive waste. The Government are alive to the importance of these difficult and different issues and keen to stimulate public consultation and debate.

Michael Jack: The Secretary of State will be aware of the potential benefits to UK agriculture of renewable energy crops, but the problem is that power stations capable of using those crops are few and far between. What negotiations is her Department conducting with generators to increase the number of those units, and what input is she having into the rewriting of electricity trading arrangements to favour electricity generation from such sources?

Margaret Beckett: Electricity trading arrangements are the subject of wider discussions with my colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry. Fuel crops offer considerable potential and they will be considered as part of the Government's discussions on our forward strategy for agriculture as a whole.

Jack Cunningham: Is not it odd that on the very day that the Government's chief scientific adviser has called for a nuclear power building programme, and given that the Government are not only failing to meet their CO 2 reduction objectives under Kyoto, but will have no chance of doing so if we remove the contribution to electricity generation that is made by nuclear power—

Joan Ruddock: I am not suggesting removing existing nuclear power.

Jack Cunningham: Will my hon. Friend stop making sedentary interventions and keep quiet for a moment?
	As the performance and innovation unit report makes it clear that we should keep the nuclear option open, does my right hon. Friend accept that it is about time we faced the reality that however big the renewables programme—I support a big programme—we will not be able to provide the electricity for an advanced industrial economy without a contribution from nuclear power?

Margaret Beckett: My right hon. Friend is correct to say that the review suggests that we should keep open the option on nuclear power, although it did not make concrete proposals about the steps that we should take. The Government are carefully considering the recommendations in the review and will make proposals for consultation in the near future.

Peter Ainsworth: Will the Secretary of State answer the question put by the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham)? Does she agree with Professor David King that the UK needs to reinvest in nuclear power, with the backing of a substantial Government financial package?

Margaret Beckett: I have not had the opportunity to study what Professor King is reported to have said, and I would wish to do so before I commented on it. All I can say is that the review recommended that the Government keep an open mind on the future use of nuclear power. As chief scientific adviser, Professor King is of course free to make his views known.

Bob Blizzard: If we are fully to develop renewable sources of energy, will my right hon. Friend tell the environmental and other groups that come to see her not to oppose offshore wind farms? Although they want renewable energy, many of those groups have blocked wind farms in the countryside. As the windiest country in Europe, it would be a disaster if our huge potential for developing offshore wind power were to be thwarted by the activities of those groups.

Margaret Beckett: I know that my hon. Friend shares the view of many in the House that many of those groups make a useful contribution to the debate, but he is also right to say that there can be a worrying tendency to a degree of inconsistency among them when it comes to concrete proposals. Everyone who wishes to see the greater development of a programme for renewables—I think that includes most hon. Members—must recognise that none of these issues is problem free.

Shellfish

Richard Younger-Ross: What representations she has received regarding shellfish extraction from rivers; and if she will make a statement.

Elliot Morley: I have received no recent representations about extraction of riverine shellfish.

Richard Younger-Ross: The Ministry has received a number of representations over the years asking the UK to re-examine the way in which it interprets European Union legislation. In the past, the Government have neither listened nor taken the opportunity to talk to the industry. An EU mission will consider the issue in May. Will the Minister ensure that it is given the facilities and the ability to talk to the Environment Agency, the sea fisheries committee and, especially, representatives of the industry? Will he, in particular, ensure that the mission comes to Devon, where there is a crisis?

Elliot Morley: I am not aware of a crisis in Devon. There has certainly been an issue relating to the classification of the water quality of a number of estuaries, and we understand that that is a serious problem. Substantial investment is being made in relation to the waste water directive and other directives to improve the classification of estuaries, so that we meet at least a category B standard around our coasts. We will certainly co-operate with the mission, and we have close links with the various organisations involved with shellfish, because this is a matter of mutual concern. Our concern is to ensure that the water quality of our estuaries is improved, for the benefit not only of shellfish but of the estuary environment.

Bob Spink: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that proposals for dredging at Shellhaven in the Thames estuary could wipe out the shellfish stocks in the area, and that the proposals for repeat dredging would prevent the recovery of stocks? That would put my local fishermen out of work and severely damage biodiversity in the region. Will the Minister consider those proposals carefully, so that he can protect the interests of the fishermen of the Thames estuary?

Elliot Morley: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we take into account the interests of the fishing industry when considering dredging proposals. There is a distinction between ongoing dredging management of existing river channels and new dredging proposals for new developments. In the case of new developments, we insist on an environmental impact assessment being carried out, in which we take into account the possible impact on sea fishing and the wider marine environment.

Waste Management

David Chaytor: What progress she has made in her plans for the management of radioactive waste.

Michael Meacher: The Government and the devolved Administrations published the consultation paper "Managing radioactive waste safely" on 12 September. We propose a programme of national debate and research, leading to scientifically sound decisions on the long-term management of radioactive waste that will inspire public confidence across the UK. The consultation period ends on 12 March.

David Chaytor: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Does he think that it would be appropriate for a new nuclear power station to be constructed before a solution had been identified to the problem of our existing stockpiles of radioactive waste? Will he confirm that Government policy would be to charge the full cost of waste disposal to any new operator? Does he think that the chief scientific adviser would have issued his statement this morning if a hijacked aircraft had flown into Sellafield rather than the World Trade Centre?

Michael Meacher: On my hon. Friend's first point, it has already been stated that the PIU energy report does not foreclose on the nuclear option. It does not propose new nuclear build, but, equally, it does not foreclose on the nuclear option in the interests of the nation's security of supply. There is no presumption on the part of the Government either for or against nuclear power. Significantly, however, the White Paper states that even if no new nuclear plant were built, and even if reprocessing were to come to an end with the phasing out of the Magnox reactors, there would still be 500,000 tonnes of radioactive waste in this country that would have to be managed over the next 100 years.
	My hon. Friend asked whether any consideration of nuclear build should involve the cost of disposal. The answer to that is, frankly, yes.
	The exposure of nuclear plants is obviously a major security issue given the events of 11 September, and it is kept firmly under review by the Office for Civil Nuclear Security. Security measures have been tightened in the light of that event.

Jonathan Sayeed: The Minister is right to talk about a major issue at Sellafield, because the amount of highly radioactive caesium 137s stored there in steel tanks that are almost 50 years old is approximately 100 times the quantity released at Chernobyl. Will he confirm that a passenger jet would take about 30 seconds to traverse the air exclusion zone around Sellafield and hit the tanks? Does he agree that, dependent on weather conditions, that would render all land within 400 miles of Sellafield uninhabitable? Will he recognise the urgent need for the imposition of new security measures, perhaps involving precautions as basic as barrage balloons, to deal with that threat until safer storage of fissile material is achieved?

Michael Meacher: Even if what the hon. Gentleman said were correct—I certainly do not confirm that it is correct—it is extraordinary and pretty irresponsible for an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman to advertise in Parliament and draw attention to the exposure of a major nuclear plant. These matters have of course been the subject of intense discussion, and there has been intense examination of all the options. It is not my place to say publicly in Parliament exactly what precautionary measures we have put in place. I would expect such measures to be handled through the usual consultative channels, not openly broadcast. The hon. Gentleman can certainly be assured that the Government are acutely aware of the problems, and are doing everything possible to deal with them. However, I do not confirm the accuracy of what he said.

Youth Hostels (Foot and Mouth)

Stephen O'Brien: What progress her Department is making to help the Youth Hostels Association to recover from the effects of the foot and mouth epidemic.

Alun Michael: We promoted the re-opening of rights of way as soon as it was safe to do so, and 99.5 per cent. of England's rights of way are now open. We are giving strong support to the "your countryside, you're welcome" campaign. I recently announced the countryside access recovery fund for not-for profit organisations, such as the YHA, that promote access and understanding of the countryside.
	To help recovery, the YHA has received £500,000 from the Countryside Agency, £200,000 from the business recovery fund and £300,000 from the National Assembly for Wales, as well as interest-free deferment of tax and other payments.

Stephen O'Brien: As the Minister will be well aware, like many rural businesses in my constituency the YHA has suffered £6 million of financial loss on just £30 million of annual turnover as a result of the foot and mouth epidemic, which might not have happened had the Government got a grip at the outset and paid heed to the lessons of the Northumberland report on the 1967 outbreak that devastated my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson). Despite the warmly spun words of the Minister in a letter to me on 29 November last year, why have the Government decided to reject the request to match the money raised by members of the YHA in an emergency appeal, which is forcing the YHA to consider selling its hostels, many of which are historic buildings, given that to their eternal shame the Government were happy to spend £1 billion on the dome?

Alun Michael: That was a muddled contribution—not so much a question as a rant. I have had discussions with the YHA, especially when the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting and I met its representatives at St. Braviels hostel. It is accelerating a process that was already under way. It has recognised the challenges that it faces in modernising its network of hostels, which it is doing in partnership with the Government. I recommend to the hon. Gentleman the YHA's own newspaper, the front page of which described the act of the Secretary of State in re-opening Hartington hall, and the strong co-operation between the YHA and the Department in recent months.

Derek Foster: Does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State realise that, despite the problems with clearing the correspondence backlog, her Department has a one-man rapid response unit in her Department? Last Friday, I faxed my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs about the problems of the youth hostel in Teesdale. My right hon. Friend spoke in person to me about the matter on Monday, I spoke to the chief executive of the YHA on Wednesday, and a solution was proposed on Thursday. May I thank my right hon. Friend for his activity?

Alun Michael: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his remarks. His approach contrasts with that of the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien), who asked the original question. My right hon. Friend looked for a solution to the challenge facing the hostel in his constituency. He engaged in discussion, and I am pleased that we were able to facilitate the constructive talks between my right hon. Friend and the YHA chief executive. That is the way forward—partnership, co-operation and action.

Angela Browning: If there is a rapid response unit at the Department, I hope that it will extend the same courtesy to Opposition Members. We have waited nine months for answers to letters.
	When YHA members visit the glorious parish of Oakford in my constituency in Devon, they find that foot and mouth still leaves a huge scar on the landscape. The area looks like terminal 5, and the Minister will know that a holding pit was constructed there during the foot and mouth crisis. The Department did not obtain a proper, formal leasing agreement from the landowner, so there is no obvious sign of the restoration of the land to a greenfield site. I hope that the Minister will intervene personally to ensure that that restoration happens.

Alun Michael: I hear what the hon. Lady says. It has nothing to do with the question, but I shall pass on the points that she makes. The Department has certainly experienced a massive problem with correspondence, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has acknowledged. We discovered that thousands of letters were outstanding up to November, and we have been working hard to clear them.
	The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) suggested that Government and Opposition Members are treated differently. The Department's ministerial team is trying to deal quickly with correspondence from hon. Members of all parties, but we face a challenge. For instance, I signed a letter to a right hon. Conservative Member this morning, the time scale of response for which is the same as that mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster). We are very fair: we are trying to accelerate response times and improve the quality available to hon. Members of all parties.

John Mann: I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend the Minister has visited youth hostels, and stayed in them. With my children and nephews, I will visit four youth hostels over the Easter break. I encourage the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien)—and perhaps some of his family—to join me in contributing to that organisation. Will my right hon. Friend look at what further assistance might be given over the next year to the YHA? It is vital for rural areas, and for young people in inner cities, such as those in my constituency, who are at risk from drug abuse and other social evils. When youth workers take them to youth hostels, those young people can enhance the quality of their lives, and learn basic skills, such as cooking and independence.

Alun Michael: My hon. Friend is right. I pay tribute to the way in which he has made representations on behalf of the YHA over recent months. I shall visit a youth hostel next week with the specific aim of discussing, examining and promoting the work undertaken with inner-city youngsters, some of whom are the most disadvantaged in society. We recognise that that is a vital part of the YHA's work, and that is why we are working with the association to ensure that it has as much success in the future as it has had in the past.

Fishing

Alistair Carmichael: If she will make a statement on recent changes to total allowable catches; and if she will make a statement.

Elliot Morley: The Commission originally proposed large cuts for a wide range of total allowable catches, in many cases going further than science would justify. At the December Fisheries Council, after lengthy negotiations we achieved an outcome that closely followed the scientific advice but did not avoid the taking of tough measures where they were justified.

Alistair Carmichael: The Minister's answer illustrates rather well the inflexibility of the current system of total allowable catches and quotas, and the problems caused by that inflexibility. Does he agree that the dumping of perfectly marketable fish to which the system often leads brings the common fisheries policy, as currently constructed, into disrepute? Does that not make the case for the inclusion in the new CFP of multi-annual and multi-species quotas? What progress is the Minister making with our European partners in that regard?

Elliot Morley: I support the introduction of multi-annual quotas, and we are making good progress. There is support for such quotas in the Council of Ministers, and the Commission has flagged them up in a discussion paper on reform of the common fisheries policy.
	The problem with multi-annual quotas, however, is that stocks need to be in reasonable shape before they can be applied. Many of our commercial stocks are below their safe biological limit. Strict limits must be placed on what can be taken out of the sea. There is a rough and ready mechanism—I accept that it is not perfect—involving discards once fishermen have exceeded their allowable catch. Without such a system, how could we deal with people who were deliberately targeting fish, as opposed to those who had caught them by accident as part of their normal fishing operations? It is an intractable problem to which no one in the industry has suggested a solution apart from the multi-annual approach, but we must secure stock recovery before applying it. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will apply it where we can.

Ann Winterton: I know that the Minister is as concerned as United Kingdom fishermen and others, including me, about the number of dolphins being caught and killed in nets—mainly, it seems, in the winter bass fisheries. It has been suggested that separated grids might solve the problem, but research in America shows that naval and commercial sonar can damage cetacean sensor systems. That may explain why dolphins are entering nets and becoming trapped. What co-operation is taking place between British and American authorities to find a way of ending this needless slaughter as soon as possible?

Elliot Morley: It is a serious problem, which we are trying to resolve. We have instituted a three-year research programme to monitor different fisheries and to try to establish where the problem has been occurring. Unfortunately, it is difficult to persuade people to admit where it has been happening. We know that it is happening in the winter bass fisheries, however, and we are getting the support of the pelagic fishermen, without which we could not do the work.
	I know that research has been conducted into acoustic noise and potential disturbance to small cetaceans. The sea mammal research unit is studying such issues. This problem, however, is a seasonal one in a particular fishery involving, potentially, a particular kind of net. We expect to give a trial to a new net this month, financed through the Department. It has been used in New Zealand, where it has been 95 per cent. successful in reducing the by-catch of sea lions. We are optimistic, but if that does not work we will consider other solutions.

Food Standards Agency

Julian Lewis: If she will make a statement on the relationship between her Department and the Food Standards Agency.

Margaret Beckett: My Department and the Food Standards Agency have a good working relationship at all levels.

Julian Lewis: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, but it does not go very far. Is it not the case that the agency has much better formalised arrangements, known as concordats, with other Departments? Does the right hon. Lady share the concern of the National Farmers Union, which has been running a campaign since the autumn on the dangers of illegal meat imports? Measures to counter that dangerous activity will not be optimised until the Department has a proper concordat with the agency.

Margaret Beckett: I am of course aware of concern about illegal imports. I was not particularly aware of the view that a concordat is the best way of solving the problem. My Department is already undertaking a number of actions, and is having discussions with the FSA and others. That will continue. I intend, in the next week or so, to convene a high-level group to assess what more can be done. There is no need for a more formalised structure; considerable and ongoing contacts exist at all levels—official and ministerial—to solve that problem and others.

Russell Brown: Much has been said about illegal meat imports, and rightly so, but there are stories of meat carcases with specified risk material attached being illegally imported into this country. Does my right hon. Friend envisage a tougher role for the FSA? For example, will it visit premises suspected of receiving such carcases and take tough action—such as requiring immediate closure—if they are indeed found?

Margaret Beckett: As my hon. Friend says, such carcases have been identified. They are inspected and dealt with, and a range of organisations and agencies are involved in that work, of which the FSA is one. I can assure him that the goal of everyone involved in such scrutiny and the application of precautions is to ensure that we pursue the matter as vigorously as possible.

Livestock Markets

Peter Atkinson: What plans her Department has to ensure the continuing viability of livestock markets.

Elliot Morley: It has been necessary for livestock markets to remain closed for much of the past year, and a need remains for disease control measures. Nevertheless, new biosecurity rules have allowed many markets to reopen in recent weeks, and I expect more to open in the coming weeks.

Peter Atkinson: Does the Minister accept that many of the regulations introduced after foot and mouth are threatening the viability of livestock markets? Does he further accept that livestock markets play an absolutely vital role in setting base prices for livestock transactions? Will he undertake as a matter of urgency to review those rules—particularly the 20-day movement restriction and some of the rules affecting transport—to establish whether they can safely be modified, so that we can maintain a vibrant and successful livestock market sector?

Elliot Morley: It is absolutely essential that markets operate with good biosecurity and that proper livestock movement controls are in place. In that respect, and as markets recognise, the situation will not be the same post-FMD as pre-FMD. Even with those restrictions, markets are opening and functioning, but a small risk remains of the disease breaking out and of sheep being stressed during the lambing period. For those reasons, we must have movement controls, but we have amended them to take into account the legitimate needs of the livestock sector and the way it functions. Most important, we must ensure that measures are in place to prevent the spread of disease.

Brian Jenkins: Has my hon. Friend considered funding a project to establish whether a virtual livestock market, through which stock could be bought and sold, might supplement the traditional livestock market in Britain? Such a market would entail less stock movement, less stock stress and less exploitation by purchasers of marketplace suppliers.

Elliot Morley: Yes, we have. Indeed, many markets found alternative ways of operating during the period of closure, and we provided support for that. In fact, the Department grant-aided the Hexham market for internet sales and diversification on the premises. That provides benefits in terms of the social function and connections within the industry to enable the setting of prices. As I understand it, the Hexham market has obtained a licence for marriage ceremonies to be performed there—that really is diversification.

Peter Duncan: The Minister will be aware that one of the greatest threats to the continuing viability of livestock markets is the fact that foot and mouth disease valuation payments to certain businesses remain outstanding. When can those businesses expect to be paid?

Elliot Morley: My information is that just about all valuations of compensation for animals killed in the outbreak have been paid. Some cases have gone to arbitration, but they are a matter for the arbiters. A very small minority of cases remain outstanding.

Phil Sawford: While we all welcome the reopening of the livestock markets and recognise the valuable contribution that they make in our communities, will my hon. Friend please ensure that every effort will be made to reduce the possibility of cross-contamination at markets? Will he also consider carefully the traceability of animals that pass through markets in out-of-ring deals?

Elliot Morley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am sure that the independent inquiry will consider issues relating to the spread of disease. The fact is, however, that moving animals around the country is a risk, and that is recognised by everyone, including the livestock industry. A range of measures must be taken to reduce that risk, and biosecurity at markets, movement controls on animals and traceability are all important elements.

Flood Defences

Laurence Robertson: If she will make a statement on her flood defence consultation paper.

Elliot Morley: The consultation document seeks views on the recommendations and conclusions in the report of the steering group that carried out a review of flood and coastal defence funding mechanisms. Both documents were published on 13 February and provide an opportunity to consider provision of the flood and coastal defence service, including a range of options for additional funding.

Laurence Robertson: I thank the Minister for that reply, but does he agree that the recommendation that developers should be taxed for building on floodplains is rather ridiculous when the Government's policy is that there should be no building on floodplains? Does he agree also that it would be rather unfair to expect residents who live on floodplains to pay extra tax, when they already pay council tax, national taxes and higher insurance premiums, if they can find insurance? Does he not think that as flooding is caused largely by acts of God or national disasters, the national taxpayer should finance flood defences?

Elliot Morley: The review stated clearly that the majority of flood and coastal defence funding should come from the Exchequer, as it does now. Of course, responsibility for tackling flooding has always been shared between national and local government, and there has always been an element of local funding. The report considers that position and a range of options. It is a consultative report, and people are free to express their views on it. These are not Government proposals, as Liberal Democrat councillors on York City council thought—they seem incapable of understanding a consultative report.
	No one has said that there should never, in any circumstances, be development on floodplains. The whole city of Hull is built on a floodplain. Through PPG25, we have asked planners to consider plans more carefully and, in some cases, to turn down applications. In cases where appropriate development is possible, it is not unreasonable to expect a contribution from the developer towards new and existing flood defences or the enumeration of any potential impact downstream of further development upstream.

John Grogan: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is considerable merit in the consultation paper's proposal that the Environment Agency should take responsibility for flood prevention not only on main rivers but on all watercourses that are subject to flood risk? If that were done, it would avoid the confusion that has occurred, most recently in the village of Bolton Percy in my constituency, about exactly who is in charge of flood prevention—the drainage authorities, the Environment Agency or the local council.

Elliot Morley: The issue of main and non-main river courses has been raised by many hon. Members on both sides of the House, and I know that there is potential confusion. The reports suggests that the anomaly is rectified by the Environment Agency taking over responsibility for critical non-main watercourses. Of course, that has financial implications for the agency, and those are the issues that we have to consider as part of the report and the consultation.

Anne McIntosh: The Minister is aware of my long-standing interest in floods, and I hope that he will take this opportunity to join me in congratulating the members of Rawcliffe parish council for agreeing to act as voluntary wardens in the event of future flooding. I hope that other parish councils, or at least those that remain after the Government's reforms, will follow suit.
	One overriding concern pervades the flood consultation: under the present law a house owner is expected to be aware of any imminent flood. That is impossible. People may already own a house on a floodplain, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) said, flooding is often caused by an act of God so it is impossible to know when it will occur. Will the Minister seek to amend that law?

Elliot Morley: We will consider all these aspects. I warmly congratulate Rawcliffe parish council on its self-help. We are keen to encourage that. The Environment Agency has produced flood risk maps, which give people an idea of whether they live in a flood-risk area. The agency has also leafleted all homes considered to be in flood-risk areas, so people are aware of that risk. Individual house owners can opt to go on to the automatic voice messaging system, which rings them, even on their mobile phone if they want, if there is a flood warning. I appreciate the fact that sometimes drains overflow or ditches get blocked, and it is difficult to predict where that will happen. That is why we can never guarantee that floods will never happen. We can, however, reduce risk and we are making good progress on that.

Rural Economy

Helen Jackson: What steps she is taking to strengthen the economy in rural communities.

Alun Michael: We are driving forward a wide range of measures to strengthen rural economies in partnership with a number of Government Departments and agencies, including regional development agencies.
	Annexe 1 of the rural White Paper "Our Countryside: the future, a fair deal for rural England" gives an extensive list of sources of funding, together with advice for rural businesses and communities.

Helen Jackson: I thank the Minister for that answer. He will be aware that South Yorkshire and my constituency are part of an objective 1 area that suffers from poverty. Hill farmers in the area have experienced difficulties arising from the BSE and foot and mouth crises. The help that they require must be cross-departmental. We are grateful for the support in respect of the rural bus community grant that we have recently received. Will my right hon. Friend, as Minister for Rural Affairs, look into the objective 1 funding stream in South Yorkshire to ensure that the rural elements in the area are getting a fair deal?

Alun Michael: I am happy to do so. If my hon. Friend wishes to draw any specific, detailed information or concerns to my attention, I shall be happy to discuss them with colleagues across government. As she says, the objective 1 programme is important. It promotes the development and structural adjustments of regions whose development is lagging behind. That includes a number of rural areas in South Yorkshire and places such as Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. There are 23 million euros available to South Yorkshire through that scheme, matched by an equivalent amount of Government money. I am certainly happy to look at any issues relating to the practical application of that scheme to rural areas.

Nicholas Winterton: Does the Minister accept that livestock markets play a vital role in the economy of rural areas? Chelford market in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), which serves my constituency, the whole of Cheshire and elsewhere, is a large employer, not only through its livestock activities but through its associated activities. Will the Minister therefore ensure that there is the minimum additional cost to livestock markets so that they are able to continue to play their part in the rural economy? Will he also seek to minimise the additional costs that will be imposed on agricultural shows, which play a valuable part in the rural economy? I refer to the Poynton show in my constituency, which is important to that village and the surrounding area.

Alun Michael: In answer to an earlier question, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary emphasised the importance that we place on markets and the assistance being given to them to get back to business, provided that safety and biosecurity are properly observed. The same arises with the shows: we recognise the importance of agricultural shows to the local community and often to a wider region. We are certainly consulting on how they can be helped to undertake their work. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that, in encouraging that activity, we need to be careful that we do not take risks which could lead to another outbreak of foot and mouth disease and problems right across the farming industry.

John Burnett: It would strengthen the rural economy if we could export our beef to France. What steps are the Government taking to impress on the European Commission and France that France should open its markets to British beef?

Alun Michael: We are pressing that point. Colleagues have taken the issue up directly and indirectly, and the matter shall be addressed. We want our beef to be exported and our beef industry to recover in markets that it needs to enjoy in the future as it did in the past.

Countryside Access (Foot and Mouth)

Peter Pike: What controls remain on access to the countryside and footpaths following the foot and mouth epidemic.

Alun Michael: The only remaining controls on access to public rights of way are where they pass through the farmyards of premises that are still subject to veterinary restrictions. Those are premises where foot and mouth disease was confirmed or strongly suspected and where final cleansing and disinfection procedures are being carried out before restocking can be permitted.

Peter Pike: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he recognise that, although it is extremely good that footpaths and the countryside have been opened up for access again following the foot and mouth epidemic, specific areas remain closed? If information about that is not publicly available from his Department or the county council, major problems could result. Is he satisfied that his Department and the county councils are making sure that people know exactly where they cannot go at present?

Alun Michael: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. We are encouraging local authorities to publish accurate information for the public on where remaining closed rights of way are located to assist in planning visits to the countryside. As I have indicated, a small number of premises are involved, and many local authorities—I discussed this with Lancashire county council only yesterday morning—recognise the importance of rights of way in the recovery of the rural economy and tourism. We are encouraging them to make that a priority and are working with them wherever possible.

Henry Bellingham: Does the Minister agree that parish councils have a pivotal role in disseminating important information about rights of way? Is he aware, however, that his Department is systematically undermining those parish councils by labelling many parishes as sleeping or barely active? In my constituency, vibrant parishes such as Great Massingham, Roydon and North Wootton have been labelled as barely active. Does he understand the anger of those parish councils at being slighted in this way? Is this not yet another attack by this Government on rural Britain?

Alun Michael: No, it is not. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to refute the scurrilous Conservative central office handout that some Opposition Members have taken up. The handout labelled as "secret" information that had been published in Hansard and placed in the House of Commons Library. That is the level to which Opposition Members have sunk in seeking to undermine the role of parish and town councils. This Government have recognised the importance of that level of local government more than any previous Government. We are working with parish councils, and they are working with us—a large number of people turned out in Lancashire the night before last to discuss the future of parish and town councils. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for leading with his chin.

Slaughter Premium

Huw Edwards: If she will make a statement on the payment of the slaughter premium where livestock was culled during the foot and mouth outbreak.

Elliot Morley: The payment of the slaughter premium subsidy depends on criteria that were not met by animals culled due to foot and mouth disease. However, we understand that compensation was based on the market value of the animal, including any expectation of its subsidy potential.

Huw Edwards: I remind my hon. Friend that several farmers in the Grosmont area of Monmouthshire had their livestock culled. The valuers indicated that the slaughter premium would be added, and answers to parliamentary questions confirm that it should have been added. Will my hon. Friend consider this matter? If those farmers are entitled to the slaughter premium, it should be paid to them.

Elliot Morley: Since my hon. Friend raised this issue, we have had significant discussions with the valuers association. The situation is a lot more complicated than it would at first appear. To provide my hon. Friend with a rough guide, from 22 March we introduced a standard valuation. Farmers had the choice of taking the standard valuation or opting for individual valuation. That standard valuation for cattle included the slaughter premium, and was used as a base line in relation to valuation, including the slaughter premium. Valuation should therefore also have included the slaughter premium. Having said that, there are some difficult cases, and we are taking advice. Generally, however, it should have been reflected in the compensation, although the rate of compensation for cattle could be regarded as generous.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I declare my agricultural interest. The Minister will be aware that I have corresponded with him and tabled written parliamentary questions about the associated issue of movement restrictions that prevented farmers from being able to get the over-30-months scheme premium during the foot and mouth outbreak. It is wholly unreasonable that, after the Government imposed movement restrictions, farmers could not then benefit from the OTMS premium. Should not the Government consider that as an associated cost of foot and mouth and pay the premium?

Elliot Morley: We have considered all the issues and examined that point closely. I repeat the point that farmers who were affected by foot and mouth of course went through a dreadful time but, throughout the outbreak, the livestock sector regarded the compensation provided as fair and generous. The compensation reflects many of the issues involved rather than the current market rate for animals.

Business of the House

Eric Forth: Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?

Robin Cook: The business for next week will be as follows:
	Monday 11 March—Progress on remaining stages of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill [Lords].
	Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (No.2) Bill.
	Tuesday 12 March—Opposition Day [11th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on "The Quality of Life in London and the South East" arising on an Opposition motion.
	I understand that it will be a full day's debate, but the right hon. Gentleman might confirm that shortly.
	Wednesday 13 March—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill [Lords].
	Thursday 14 March—Debate on women and equality on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Friday 15 March—Private Members Bills.
	The provisional business for the following week will be:
	Monday 18 March—Debate on hunting. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] I am glad that it has received so much consensus in the House.
	Tuesday 19 March—Opposition Day [12th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
	Wednesday 20 March—Progress on remaining stages of the Adoption and Children Bill.
	Thursday 21 March—There will be a debate on education: 14 to 19-year-olds on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Friday 22 March—The House will not be sitting.
	The House may wish to be reminded that subject to the progress of business the House will rise for the Easter recess at the end of business on Tuesday 26 March and return on Tuesday 9 April.
	The House will wish to know that on Monday 18 March 2002 there will be a debate relating to enlargement in European Standing Committee B. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
	[Monday 18 March 2002:
	European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Union documents: 14117/01 and Addenda 1-13, The European Commission strategy paper on enlargement and reports on progress by applicants; 5745/02, Common Financial Framework 2004-2006 for Accession Negotiations. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Reports: HC 152-xv and HC 152-xx (2001-02).]

Eric Forth: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for providing us with the forthcoming business.
	The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt be aware that at 11 o'clock this morning the Transport Committee produced its latest report, HC 680, on the public-private partnership for the London Underground. Extraordinarily, one of its conclusions is:
	"The decision of the Secretary of State to proceed with the PPP on the back of such a vapid concluding statement from his independent advisers, Ernst & Young, must be questioned."
	A Select Committee with a Labour majority—all Select Committees have such a majority—has questioned the decision of the Secretary of State for Transport. Local Government and the Regions. Members of the Committee are not the first persons to question his decisions, and they certainly will not be the last. The Committee then adds:
	"It is essential that the Government allows Members a debate and vote in the House of Commons on a substantive motion on the future of the London Underground and the PPP."
	Given the enormous respect that the Leader of the House has for Select Committees and his stated desire greatly to enhance their role, I am sure that he will be only too eager to confirm that there will not only be an early debate on this very important report, but that it will be on a substantive motion. I hope that he will be able to do that.
	One of today's newspapers contains the headline, "Railtrack fiasco has shattered Blair's credibility in the City". It refers to the pronouncement by top fund managers in the City that said that the recent decision on Railtrack
	"has shattered business trust in the Government."
	The report adds that
	"future private investment in public projects would be more expensive because of the perception of increased risk.
	The surcharge has been dubbed 'the Byers premium'".
	Another newspaper quotes the Secretary of State for Transport as undaunted by all that and reports:
	"Mr. Byers claimed that the fund managers had fundamentally misunderstood the situation. Railtrack was a wholly private company".
	That was not the impression that Labour Back Benchers had last week when they were only too eager to support the beleaguered Secretary of State when he appeared in the House. So will the Leader of the House tell us now or make arrangements to confirm later whether, as the Secretary of State claimed to the City, Railtrack is private or whether the Secretary of State wishes his colleagues to think that it is not private? May we have confirmation one way or another?
	Today's edition of the Daily Mail has the headline, "Mittal: it gets worse". May we have a debate entitled, "How many Government Departments can you buy for £125,000"? We know, do we not, that No. 10 Downing street can be bought. We know that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office can be bought. Now it would appear that the Home Office can also be bought for that same £125,000. Has the Leader of the House been briefed to reply to the question whether this story about the Home Office and Mittal is true? In a friendly gesture, I would just sound a slight health warning for the Leader of the House, reminding him to be careful what he might say about any briefing that he has had. The truth is, is it not—it is now perfectly obvious—that the Government have been bought again? I hope that the Leader of the House will be able to clarify this latest story about the rather ghastly Mr. Mittal.
	Yesterday, Richard Balfe, the most senior Labour Member of the European Parliament, joined the Conservative party. It is interesting that—

Dennis Skinner: You can have him.

Eric Forth: I hear the hon. Gentleman—

Dennis Skinner: He is in favour of the euro.

Eric Forth: When giving his reasons for joining the Conservative party, Mr. Balfe accused the Prime Minister of ruling Labour by fear, and then he said, as reported in The Daily Telegraph, that
	"the Tory party under Iain Duncan Smith is a tolerant party that accepts differing opinions and encourages debate."
	It is just as well; otherwise some of us might not survive very long.
	I introduce the subject of Mr. Balfe because he obviously feels that there is no scope within the Labour party for any sort of debate or difference of view, and I remind the Leader of the House that recently, at this Dispatch Box, I had to defend his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) from a vicious attack by none other than the Foreign Secretary. Now I find that I must try to defend the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway), who has been viciously attacked by his supposed hon. Friend, the Under–Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw). At column 88WH—I cannot imagine what that stands for—of yesterday's Hansard, the junior Minister said about his alleged hon. Friend that he was
	"an apologist . . . a mouthpiece, for the Iraqi regime over many years."
	That then gave rise to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin saying:
	"The Minister is a liar"
	and
	"The Minister told a lie about me."—[Official Report, 6 March 2002; Vol. 381, c. 88WH.]
	Will the Leader of the House take his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary aside and give him some quiet advice on how Ministers should stop abusing Labour Back Benchers to such an extent, otherwise they will all leave his party and join mine?

Robin Cook: The Conservative party must be more desperate for members than we imagined if the right hon. Gentleman really hopes that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) will defect to it. My hon. Friend is making a personal statement later this afternoon. I shall listen to it with interest, but I do not anticipate that the climax of that will be his joining the tolerant party of the right hon. Gentleman.
	As for Mr. Richard Balfe, I am trying to come to terms with his departure with all the equanimity that I can muster, and the right hon. Gentleman will need all the equanimity that he can muster to work with him as a colleague, particularly on the euro.
	I will, of course, study with care the Transport Committee's report, but I remind the House and the right hon. Gentleman—this seems to have slipped his mind—that the conclusion of the Ernst and Young study was that the analysis on which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport spoke was robust. I will, of course, consider whether we should hold a further debate on that matter. The House has considered the issue on a number of occasions, and I am sure that it will do so again.
	On the City and the funding of public-private partnerships, may I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that, despite the alarmism that he seeks to spread further, since last summer there have been 44 new PPPs signed with City firms without any problem about their coming forward and offering the funding. Indeed, the Chiltern line, which will be known to several of his hon. Friends given that, on the whole, it serves areas that managed to survive their debacles at the last two general elections, has just attracted £370 million of private finance without anyone complaining about additional risk premium or the risk of that funding.
	Of course, a fundamental question remains, which the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are for ever failing to answer. If they had found themselves in the position of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, are they really saying that they would have paid out the money to Railtrack and left it in the hands not just of a private legal company, but one with private shareholders whom it repeatedly put before the travelling public, who are glad to see the back of it?
	The right hon. Gentleman will be very pleased to hear that I can help him on Mr. Mittal and the newspaper story. First, the correspondence began with a request from the Belgian authorities, not with any request from Mr. Mittal. Secondly, Mr. Mittal is not under any investigation by the Belgian authorities; on the contrary, they were seeking evidence from him as a witness against one of his competitors. [Hon. Members: "Corus."] [Laughter.] I honestly do not understand what Opposition Members find in any way amusing about our seeking perfectly properly to assist another European country with a legal investigation that it is carrying out.
	I heard the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) say this morning that such things never happened during his time at the Home Office. It may therefore help him if I say that the organisation that handles and processes such correspondence—the UK central authority for mutual legal assistance—was set up in 1990 by the Conservative party. Every year, it deals with some 4,000 items of correspondence from other judicial authorities. When the right hon. and learned Member was Home Secretary it undoubtedly processed many thousands of identical requests. I suppose that we should be grateful to him for having made it clear that he had no idea whatever what was being done by the Home Office while he was Home Secretary. If the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst would like to debate that further, I would welcome it.
	As we are on the topic of Mr. Mittal, I would welcome a debate in which we could explore from where came the £43 million in donations that the Conservative party received in its last year in office. Conservative Members have never come clean as to who they received that money from or what they did for them, but we know one or two of the donors.

Gordon Prentice: Asil Nadir.

Robin Cook: They received £400,000 from Asil Nadir, as my hon. Friend cries out, on the basis of his fraudulent company in northern Cyprus. They promised that they would return that money, but they never did so. I understand that they have just received several million from Lord Ashcroft, who, when he was appointed as a peer, said that he would like to be known as Lord Ashcroft of Belize. If the right hon. Gentleman would like to explore those matters further in a debate, we would be delighted to do so, and we would like to hear some answers.

Gerald Kaufman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in the "What the Papers Say" script that we have just heard from the shadow Leader of the House, he was certainly right about one thing: the greater tolerance of the current leader of the Conservative party, who showed himself tolerant enough to appoint the right hon. Gentleman as shadow Leader of the House?
	May I thank my right hon. Friend for confirming the debate on hunting in the provisional business for 18 March? Will he confirm to me—as a Labour Member who, when in government, used the Parliament Act to obtain the enactment of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977—that there is no obstacle whatever to using the Parliament Act to enact a new Bill passed by this House in this Parliament? Will he therefore assure me that, if the will of the House makes it very clear that it wishes a complete ban on hunting with hounds, the Government will ensure that such a Bill is passed, using the Parliament Act if necessary?

Robin Cook: My right hon. Friend will be aware that I said in response to questions last week that we will have a vote on hunting on 18 March and, indeed, so will the other place. Thereafter, the Minister for Rural Affairs will be seeking to find a way forward and will make proposals before the Easter recess. That will involve legislation at some stage, but it is a bit premature to speculate about a point which, on that timetable, is not likely to arise for at least another 18 months.

Paul Tyler: May I assure the Leader of the House that we, too, would support a debate on the failed privatisation of Railtrack and its relevance to the part-privatisation of the tube, if only because we could then establish whether the Conservative party was still in favour of privatisation, having botched it the first time around?
	May I ask that we have a debate as early as possible on the private purchase of politicians? The Leader of the House may recall that, a few weeks ago, he gave a dismissive reply to my request for such a debate on its relevance to the future funding of democracy in this country. Today it is reported that his right hon. Friend the chairman of the Labour party has been having secret talks with the chairman of the Conservative party on the subject of state funding for the political parties and the political process. I do not know whether this is a private fight, or whether anyone can join in.
	May I suggest that that debate should take place in this House and not behind the scenes between the representatives of the two dinosaur parties? There is genuine public concern about the extent to which successive Governments—the Leader of the House referred to this just now—have been dependent on private donations. We need to establish once and for all what those poor, benighted creatures were doing in making those contributions and whether they got value for money.
	May we have a statement before Easter on the subject of Lords reform? The Leader of the House said that he was seeking a centre of gravity. The excellent and unanimous report by the Select Committee on Public Administration offers him an opportunity to create precisely that consensus and centre of gravity. Can I suggest that now the consultation period is long over, and that his White Paper—[Interruption.] Not the Leader of the House's White Paper; the Lord Chancellor's White Paper—I am sorry to have maligned the right hon. Gentleman in that way. Now that the Lord Chancellor's White Paper has been thoroughly discussed, it is time for the House to move on.

Robin Cook: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his characterisation of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and me as members of the dinosaur parties. In fairness to my colleagues, I am entitled to point out that the party of Gladstone is somewhat older than the party that I represent. The hon. Gentleman might wish to reflect on where the tag of "the oldest party" should be attached.
	May I deal with the point about political parties by stepping back and looking at it a little more widely than I am afraid the media do? Our parliamentary democracy cannot function without political parties; that is the nature of democracy. We require political parties to be in good health and to have some source of funding. If it is the case that the media and some hon. Members are moving to the view that private donations are unacceptable, there has to be an acceptance of alternative ways in which political parties are funded. That is why it is entirely legitimate for members of both parties to have discussions and to explore and debate whether there should be state funding. There is no commitment to that on the part of the Government and I think that the chairman of the Conservative party might have some difficulty in carrying all the members of the Conservative Front Bench on this question.

Eric Forth: indicated assent

Robin Cook: I am grateful for that confirmation.
	On the issue of House of Lords reform and the hon. Gentleman's point about the Public Administration Committee, I welcome one general point about the report, which is that it proves that it is possible for those who want reform of the second Chamber to reach agreement on what should be the shape of that reform. What has repeatedly worried me—I have expressed this to the House—is that, for decades, we have failed to proceed with root and branch reform of the second Chamber because those who are in favour of reform have been unable to agree on the shape of it. The Select Committee has done us a service by proving unanimously and without division that those in favour of reform are able to reach agreement. I am encouraged by that to continue with the search for a centre of gravity. I am also encouraged to recognise that doing nothing need not be an option.

Tam Dalyell: In yesterday's Hansard, the Prime Minister replied to me:
	"When decisions do have to be taken on Iraq, of course we will come and consult the House properly as we should."—[Official Report, 6 March 2002; Vol. 381, c. 297.]
	Could it be confirmed next week that such consultation will take place before there is a commitment to military action, and not after?

Robin Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his characteristically helpful question. May I gently point out to him that the Prime Minister said that no decision has been taken, and no one anticipates one being taken in the near or medium future? Indeed, there is no timetable or process by which such a decision could be taken. It would therefore be ludicrously premature for me as Leader of the House to commit myself to what the House may do in the event of a hypothetical outcome that is not expected for many months.
	In any event, the Government have demonstrated, with the recent crisis in Afghanistan, a willingness, enthusiasm and keenness to hear from the House. We have had five separate full-day debates on that issue in which, if I remember rightly, my hon. Friend was careful to give his views at length, as I am sure he will do when we debate it again.

Charles Hendry: May we have a statement on the Government's relations with industry and trade unions? Yesterday in the House the Prime Minister said that the concerns of City fund managers about the financing of public-private projects were motivated by self-interest. Today we read on the front page of The Times that he is crawling back to them by reneging on pledges on workers' rights that he has made to trade unions. Can the Prime Minister make a clear statement to the House on where he stands? Now that we all know the way in which the Government operate, can we be told how much more money the unions would have to pay the Government to get a change of policy?

Robin Cook: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman gives me an opportunity to correct the statements in this morning's press. We issued a consultation document last September on the preservation of pension rights. It listed a number of options that have been out for consultation. They are being discussed in the Government and no decision has been made.

Bill Tynan: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the considerable disquiet in companies up and down the country because of the demise of final salary occupational pension schemes? Will he make time for a debate on the Floor of the House on that important issue to reassure the many people who are worried and to see what can be done to support them?

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend raises a profound and serious issue for the nation. Many of us are going to live longer than before, so it is all the more important to ensure that there are adequate pension schemes to take people through what will also be a longer period of retirement. I very much regret the decline in the number of final year pension schemes. I note that some of the companies that have started the process of erosion of those schemes have not shown any erosion in the pensions they award to their senior executives. I will convey my hon. Friend's observations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. I assure him that the Government will follow the issue closely.

Douglas Hogg: May I reinforce the point made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on the general concern about Iraq? Will the right hon. Gentleman try to arrange an early debate on the Floor of the House, led by the Foreign Secretary or the Prime Minister, on Iraq? Will he consider publishing at an early date a document that sets out and identifies the chief areas of concern in the context of Iraq? In the event of the Government deciding to take or to support action, including military action, outside what goes on in the no-fly zones, will he seek the support of the House on a substantive motion, even if that authority has to be given retrospectively, which is where I slightly depart from the views of the hon. Member for Linlithgow?

Robin Cook: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has floated an alternative option to that proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). The request is ludicrously premature in terms of what may, or may not, be happening. No decision has been taken, and none may ever be taken. The fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and my hon. Friend have produced two different approaches shows that we need to consider the matter carefully before we commit ourselves to one or other way of proceeding.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman's other point related to the grounds of concern about Iraq. At the present time I do not think that there would be any difficulty for the Government putting in the public domain a response to the areas of concern to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has alluded, but those issues are well known and unarguable. The fact is that the Iraqi regime has several thousands of unaccounted litres of toxic chemicals that would be appropriate to use in a chemical weapon; it has made considerable investment in developing biological germ agents that could be used in biological weapons; and has proceeded intensively—and appears to be continuing to do so—with medium-range missiles that could deliver such warheads. In addition, of course, Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons in his attack on an innocent village of Kurds, wiping out 5,000 women, children and elderly men with mustard gas.
	Given that history and the present record, it is entirely proper that the world should take action through every available channel, starting with the United Nations, to ensure that Saddam Hussein accepts what the rest of the world accepts: no regime should have access to weapons of mass destruction unless it fully participates in international regimes to control proliferation.

Colin Challen: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to a report of the European Parliament on relations between the European Parliament and national Parliaments on European integration? It refers to
	"the growing disaffection, disappointment and distrust regarding the development of the Union",
	and goes on to talk about
	"a fear of helplessness in the face of imposed decisions which cannot be influenced or controlled".
	In the light of the fact that constitutional convention is considering many of the issues developing in the Union, what arrangements will be made for debates in this House—as the convention proceeds, and not just at the end of it—and what arrangements might be made to help Members promote the debate outside the House, since our colleagues in the European Parliament receive large amounts of money to promote their arguments?

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend will be aware that this House is represented directly by two Members—one from our party, who has been elected to the collective presidency of the convention and is therefore well placed to monitor its proceedings and agenda, and one who represents the Opposition, who no doubt also represents their strong views against Europe and will be making his own strong commitment to it and reporting to us at great length.
	I anticipate that, as the convention proceeds, it will be a matter of repeated discussion in the House. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe will be frequently before the House giving an account of it. We have had discussions on the process by which Members of the House and of the convention can report to Committees of the House, but I very much share my hon. Friend's concern that the debate should not simply be one within the convention or, indeed, between the convention and national Parliaments. The debate must also embrace the wider population and the civic community of Europe. I very much hope that high on the convention's agenda is the means of ensuring that it carries out exercises in listening to that civic community.

Andrew Mitchell: Will the Leader of the House think carefully about the comment of his hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) and bear in mind the tradition of consensus across the House when discussing pension legislation and the future of pensions? Although there is much discussion at the moment in the House on legislation affecting second pensions, pension plus and stakeholder pensions, there has not been an opportunity to discuss the serious, long-term and deep effects on security in retirement. Will he therefore look favourably on the possibility of an Adjournment debate in which we can consider such issues and subject them to the measured and informed discussion that they badly need?

Robin Cook: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that when dealing with the question of our citizens' income over a prolonged period—that might be two or three decades in retirement—it is important that we provide them with the stability and confidence of a cross-party approach, which is why many of us on the Labour Benches regretted that one of the Conservative Government's first acts after election in 1979 was to scrap the new pension scheme that the Labour Government had introduced. Had that been honoured by the Conservative party, the hon. Gentleman's appeal for a cross-party approach might have more resonance. However, I agree that we should try again to build that consensus, and I am sure that there will be opportunities to debate it in the months ahead.

Gordon Prentice: I failed narrowly to get in my question to Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Ministers, so may I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to urge his colleagues in that Department to make a statement in the House on organophosphates? He will know that organophosphate sheep dips were withdrawn from the market a few years, but reintroduced in October 2000. However, this month, a significant research report has been published in The Lancet by Professor Nicola Cherry, who tells us that the results of her research
	"suggest that organophosphates contribute to the reported ill health of people who dip sheep."
	The issue is a huge one in farming communities, and it is worthy of a Minister coming to the House urgently to tell us what the Government's position is.

Robin Cook: I can only express my deep regret that my hon. Friend did not have a chance to put that question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs rather than to me, but I shall make a point of writing to my right hon. Friend this afternoon so that honour is served.

George Young: May I press the Leader of the House on the issue of Lords reform? Has he had time to read a perceptive piece by Hugo Young—no relation—in The Guardian today? He says of the Government's proposals:
	"Tranquillity beckons. Relief from a project too few of them really want . . . Deliverance into comfortable inertia."
	Will the right hon. Gentleman dispel those allegations by promising an early debate on the Government's forthcoming response to the Public Administration Committee report, in which the Government's proposals will be set out clearly?

Robin Cook: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I begin every Thursday by reading The Guardian; it ensures that I come to the House in a suitably combative mood.
	As the House knows, we are currently considering the responses to our consultation exercise. We received about 1,000 responses, many of a thoughtful and serious character. We shall at some stage publish an analysis of the responses, and respond to the PAC within two months. Obviously, the matter will have to return to the House at some stage, but I think it appropriate that we take time to get it right before it does so.

David Hamilton: In December last year, the Minister for Industry and Energy made a welcome statement that, after 17 years, he was to right a wrong done to sacked miners throughout the country, several hundred of whom were sacked during the miners' strike. To date, nothing further has been said. Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House ensure that a statement is made in the near future?

Robin Cook: I know that strong feelings attach to that issue and that it is important to a large number of people in my hon. Friend's constituency. I shall make sure that his comments are drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry as soon as possible.

Martin Smyth: The Leader of the House may have picked up vibrations in the press about the Government's undoubted generosity in granting accommodation to Members who are absent from the House and their staff when sitting Members who attend regularly still do not have adequate accommodation. Is he in a position to offer guidance on the steps that would be taken to discipline a party that is not yet prepared to support the Police Service of Northern Ireland, and whose defeated candidate in the Belfast, South constituency at the last election—a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly—joined others to intimidate people by putting up posters urging them not to join the police service, while at the same time encouraging their own form of restorative justice, a do-it-yourself kangaroo court?

Robin Cook: I am sure that the whole House joins the hon. Gentleman in deprecating such activity, but the House has no mechanism to discipline its Members for activities undertaken outside the Chamber or the House—nor should it. Many hon. Members motivated by perfectly bona fide commitments and beliefs of their own carry out activities that the House would neither endorse nor be drawn to condemn.
	The hon. Gentleman will be aware that when we debated the matter before Christmas considerable concern was expressed that Members are required to register only on taking the Oath, rather than on being elected. I am pleased that the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges has made a recommendation to the effect that registration should be required of all Members on the point of election or within three months of election. I hope to introduce a motion giving effect to that recommendation before Easter.

Julie Morgan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the all-party group on children in Wales agreed last week to support in principle the aims of 'Sdim Curo Plant!—the Welsh campaign to ban the physical punishment of children and to give children the same protection as adults under the law of assault? I am sure that he is aware that the Scottish Executive propose to ban the physical punishment of all children under three. Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on this important subject so that we can consider how it affects children in England and Wales and raise the important issues associated with it?

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend raises a subject of considerable debate. She is aware that strong and different views are held on both sides of the fence, which is why the Government have sought to make sure that they find the right balance between the protection of the child and the rights and responsibilities of the parent. As a Scottish MP, I fully support and welcome what is being done in the Scottish Parliament, but the principle of devolution is the right of each side to take whatever action it regards as appropriate for its side of the border.

John Butterfill: When the right hon. Gentleman was replying to my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader on concerns about PPP, he pointed out that there have been a number of successful PPPs in the recent past. He will, however, have heard a succession of leaders of the financial community on the "Today" programme this morning and elsewhere saying that a risk premium would undoubtedly be imposed for future PPPs as a result of the actions of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. That is a matter for real concern, as the Government's credibility is in considerable danger. Will the right hon. Gentleman set in place methods to monitor the future rates of return from PPP submissions, if indeed he can get anybody to do it at all, so that we can see whether those fears are justified? Can those figures be published, unlike the unpublished figures relating to London Transport, and if there is cause for concern, can we have a debate on the matter?

Robin Cook: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that every PPP is subject to tests of value for money, which require an analysis of what the future costs will be and how that compares with public sector traditional funding. No PPP will proceed unless it passes that value for money test. As I told the House, more than 40 such schemes have passed that test since it became clear that Railtrack could no longer continue. What would the hon. Gentleman and all his hon. Friends who raise the issue have done in the circumstances in which my right hon. Friend found himself last autumn? Are they saying that they would have volunteered £5 billion, the sum that would have been required to keep Railtrack afloat, in the full knowledge that the company had given hundreds of millions to its shareholders while skimping on investment for the travelling public?

Helen Jones: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the closure of Smurfit Corrugated in my constituency, with the loss of 94 jobs? Does he agree that a company which fails properly to consult its workers, which fails to give adequate reasons for choosing the Warrington plant for closure and which, it is suspected, will take the savings from that closure to invest abroad, should be held to account on the Floor of the House? Should we not have the opportunity to debate not just that closure, but the chances of providing better protection for British workers caught up in such situations?

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend rightly and properly raises a matter of anxiety for her constituents and an issue that must be of serious concern in her constituency. There are ways in which she can ventilate that through the House. It is important that we make sure that we get the right balance of rights in the workplace, and the Government have taken action to ensure that there are fair rights at the workplace. We must get the right balance between the provision of skilled flexible labour that will attract investment, and the decent protection of that labour from unemployment.

Andrew MacKay: As the Leader of the House was present in the Chamber yesterday to hear Northern Ireland's First Minister tell the Prime Minister clearly how much it would undermine him and others who supported the Belfast agreement if the Government went ahead with an amnesty for terrorists on the run, can he give us an assurance today that no such amnesty will be granted? I see the right hon. Gentleman shaking his head. As he clearly does not intend to give us such an assurance, will he at the very least say that the suggestions in the press that the amnesty will occur over Easter are quite wrong, and that the House should be allowed to debate the matter before a decision is taken?

Robin Cook: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland would be rather startled if I were to rule out or rule in what he must do. I have always made it perfectly plain that we want to ensure that the peace process succeeds. If time is required in the House to ensure that that happens, I shall, as Leader of the House, ensure that it is made available.

Jim Knight: Can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the membership of Select Committees? In particular, does he share my concern about the continued inclusion on the Defence Committee of the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), who remains a member of that Committee despite his recent appointment to the Opposition Front Bench as a defence spokesman? He is indeed a very honourable man; I get on with him well and I congratulate him on his appointment. However, I feel that his membership dilutes the independence of the Committee and threatens its ability to achieve cross-party consensus.

Robin Cook: I understand that this matter was raised in the Liaison Committee this morning, and I shall be very happy to discuss it with the Chairman of that Committee so that I can understand and reflect the collective views of the Select Committee Chairmen. It would be generally held to be desirable for Select Committees, which carry out scrutiny and seek to find cross-party agreements on their reports wherever possible, not to include Front Benchers from either side of the Chamber. However, I say to my hon. Friend that we must also be understanding of the fact that the official Opposition are so small they might need Front Benchers to be included.

Mike Hancock: Will the Leader of the House find an opportunity to debate in Government time the latest privatisation in the Ministry of Defence? The privatisation of fleet support services affects 4,000 jobs in Rosyth, Portsmouth, Devonport and Faslane. Will he give the House a proper chance to scrutinise the way in which the process has operated? We need to give some confidence to the work force that the 1,000-odd projected redundancies will be considered properly, and the House needs to be satisfied that the MOD has properly gone through all the processes for considering the bids for the work. There is currently widespread dissatisfaction about the way in which the matter has been handled and a resistance on the part of the MOD to come to the House to justify the position that it has taken.

Robin Cook: This sounds like exactly the sort of issue that the Defence Select Committee could pursue if it were minded to do so. None the less, I shall certainly convey the hon. Gentleman's observations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and invite my right hon. Friend to write to him.

Andy Burnham: I support the call made by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) for a debate on the manufacturing industry and employee protection. Problems in the industry are hitting towns such as Leigh especially hard. Leigh has lost thousands of jobs in recent years in coal mining and textiles, and we now face the injustice of 220 people being made redundant from Volex on terms that are by far inferior to those applying to counterparts in the Republic of Ireland who work for the same company. Will my right hon. Friend find time soon for a debate on the process of redundancy, how it is hurting families and how we might do more to protect employees who are being made redundant?

Robin Cook: In recent weeks, a number of colleagues have requested a debate on manufacturing industry. I am acutely aware of those demands and keep them very much in mind. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will open a debate in the House next week in pursuit of one of her other responsibilities, but I am conscious of the wish on both sides of the House for a debate on this matter. I shall see whether we can accommodate some way of ventilating these issues if time is available.

John Hayes: In calling for urgent clarification from the Leader of the House, I seek to draw to the House's attention a matter that will concern Opposition, Government and minor party Members. On 30 January, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister about worsening waiting times in accident and emergency departments. The Prime Minister replied—I refer to column 281 of Hansard—that the method of measuring such things had changed. Indeed, he said that it had changed under this Government. Given that ministerial replies from both this Government and the previous one make it absolutely clear that these figures are collated and collected centrally only by the Audit Commission, I was surprised to receive a note from the Library saying:
	"The Audit Commission has used the same indicators since 1996".
	The note also said:
	"If Mr. Blair's response suggests that measurement methods have changed and that therefore the figures quoted by Mr. Duncan Smith are incomparable, it appears to be misplaced."
	That is a serious matter. Given the Prime Minister's scrupulous regard for straightforwardness and accuracy—if only Hansard could measure irony—he will want to make an urgent statement to the House about the source of his information and the basis on which he made the claim. If it is inaccurate, he will want to apologise to hon. Members, for it is inconceivable that he would deliberately mislead the House.

Robin Cook: The hon. Gentleman raises an important, highly detailed and technical point. He will forgive me if I say that I do not believe that it would assist me or hon. Members if I attempted to answer it without either notice or considering the facts. However, I shall ensure that the Secretary of State for Health responds to the hon. Gentleman to clarify the issue.

Iain Luke: The Leader of the House may be aware of early-day motion 943, which looks forward to the celebrations for Europe day on 9 May, the anniversary of the date on which Robert Schuman presented his proposals for creating a European Community.
	[That this House looks forward to the opportunity for the United Kingdom to celebrate Europe Day on 9th May; recognises that 9th May marks the day in 1950 that Robert Schuman presented his proposal for the creation of the European Union; notes that the European Union has been central to the maintenance of peaceful relations and coexistence on this continent ever since; welcomes the opportunity for the UK to join in this annual celebration of the diversity of cultures that exist within Europe; and celebrates the UK's membership of the European Union.]
	Will my right hon. Friend consider holding a debate on Thursday 9 May to mark Britain's continued, positive involvement in Europe?

Robin Cook: I am tempted to agree to such a debate if only to enable Mr. Richard Balfe to tell us his views on Conservative European policy.

Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate or statement from the Secretary of State for Health on the disposal of surplus national health service accommodation? A group of people in Wirksworth in my constituency would like the NHS care centre that was closed recently to be converted into accommodation for elderly people. That service is desperately needed in the town. A similar arrangement to that in Buxton, whereby the property was sold at a lower cost to local residents, could solve the problem.

Robin Cook: The hon. Gentleman has been able to raise an issue of concern to his constituency. However, I am not sure that the best way to proceed is through centrally imposed guidelines or requirements. Obviously, when appropriate and effective alternative uses that meet other social care or health needs can be found for NHS premises, the local health authority should provide for that. However, there is an alternative. In the case of large, commercially profitable sites—there is an example in my constituency—ploughing the money back into other parts of the health service is frankly best for the community. However, decisions should be made case by case, not centrally.

Jimmy Wray: In view of the Chancellor's actions to eradicate child poverty and the new Child Poverty Action Group report, will the Leader of the House arrange a debate on the subject in the Chamber? Britain has a population of 55 million, but the report states that Glasgow, with a small population of 600,000, has four of the 10 most deprived areas. It has suffered high infant mortality, horrendous housing problems and unemployment. I would like the Government to eradicate the poverty that the previous Government left behind them, especially in Glasgow.

Robin Cook: We will hold the Budget debate next month. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will refer to child poverty and the action that we are taking to tackle and, over a period of time, to eradicate it. Like my hon. Friend, I heard the Chancellor speak on the matter yesterday, and I was impressed by the progress that we are making. We inherited a legacy of rapidly rising child poverty from the Conservative Government and we are taking action to decrease it rapidly. That is the right priority for the nation and the Government.

Pete Wishart: On Tuesday, we spent three hours debating whether final planning consent for new nuclear power stations lay with the House or the Scottish Parliament. Although we did not get an answer to a clear question, we got the strong impression that final consent lay with the House. Meanwhile, the Minister for Energy and Industry, who should have responded to the debate, made a speech in Scotland that strongly suggested that the decision lay with the Scottish Parliament. What can the Leader of the House do to protect hon. Members from Ministers' contradictory statements? When can we have an early statement to clarify the issue?

Robin Cook: The hon. Gentleman has just had a three-hour debate on the topic of his choice. He cannot really expect that to be followed by a statement in the House. It is rich for the Scottish National party to complain when Ministers go to Scotland. I should have thought that they would welcome every possible visit to Scotland by the appropriate Ministers. As I said last week, this matter has to be dealt with in partnership, whatever the legal niceties, and that is the way in which we shall proceed with the Administration in Edinburgh. [Interruption.] I should like to know whether the Conservative party—if it ever got into power—could offer the same kind of partnership with the Scottish Executive that we can.

John Cryer: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on mobile telecommunications masts, an issue that probably affects every constituency in the country? There has been a recent proposal in my constituency for a mast between, and very close to, two primary schools, which flies in the face of the recommendation in the Stewart report—a Government report—that masts should not be located near such schools. The problem is that although PPG8 has been strengthened—for which I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government—it did not go far enough in incorporating some of the Stewart report's recommendations, particularly the recommendation that such masts should be kept well away from primary schools. May we have a debate, or at least a statement, on that issue?

Robin Cook: As my hon. Friend will be aware, the conclusion of the Stewart report, based on the available scientific evidence, was that there is no general health risk from mobile telecommunications masts. However, I fully understand why parents are particularly anxious when they see such masts being located near schools—and, sometimes, on schools—having had experience of this in my constituency. I shall certainly convey to the Department my hon. Friend's concern that that recommendation in the Stewart report should be acted on.

Angela Watkinson: Bearing in mind the interest of the Leader of the House in strengthening the role of Select Committees as part of the modernisation of the House, does he agree that the announcement on the declassification of cannabis by the Home Secretary at a meeting of the Home Affairs Committee just two weeks before the Committee commenced an investigation into drugs policy, and the announcement in the media today by the drugs Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth)—on how to make it easier and safer for people to take dance drugs in night clubs, undermine the role of the Select Committee?

Robin Cook: I am not sure that I follow the hon. Lady's concern that the Home Secretary's making a statement to the Select Committee somehow undermines it. Personally, I welcome that innovation, and I am sure that many of my right hon. Friends will consider making further such use of Select Committees. If we want Select Committees to carry out their functions properly, and to have a proper status in this place, it is entirely right that they should occasionally receive new announcements from the appropriate Secretary of State.

John Robertson: I know that my right hon. Friend is aware of the good work carried out by my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) on asbestosis in respect of the Chester Street insurance company. However, is my right hon. Friend aware that the companies that agreed to pay compensation to asbestosis sufferers—and any future sufferers—are now reneging on the deal? They will not pay out any money, even to those who have received letters stating that their compensation has been granted, which means that the compensation has been printed out on paper but is not worth the paper that it is printed on. Will he arrange a debate on this serious issue, so that we can name and shame those companies?

Robin Cook: I fully share my hon. Friend's deep regret at behaviour that appears to be deplorable. I am sure that many hon. Members will share the sense of outrage that his constituents no doubt feel. On the facts as stated, I would be surprised if there were no legal remedy available to those who are most affected, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will continue to pursue the matter and make full use of the facilities of the House to do so.

John Wilkinson: On the day on which the Office of Public Services Reform at the Cabinet Office is issuing no fewer than 10,000 pamphlets to the public services, and on which Mr. Ian Jones, the head of news at the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, remains suspended without charge, may I ask for a debate in Government time on the operation and management of the civil and public services, the criteria for the maintenance of standards, and the accountability and responsibility of Her Majesty's Ministers?

Robin Cook: I have no intention of saying anything on the question of the civil servant who has been suspended pending an investigation. It is a matter for the permanent secretary to announce the conclusion of that investigation and it would not help either the individual concerned or the permanent secretary for the rest of us to get drawn into a political debate on it in the meantime.
	On the publication today of the pamphlet that has been delivered to up to 10,000 senior officials in the public service, it is proper and right that the Government should try to ensure that those who work in the public service understand the extent to which their contribution is valued and the broad strategy to which they are working. It would be the act of a bad employer and an inefficient manager not to ensure that that message is understood throughout the service. I notice that the Conservative party is calling for the decentralisation of the health service, which it highly centralised, so the hon. Gentleman should be pleased to hear that one of the four main themes of the pamphlet is flexibility through the decentralisation of power and resources to those in the front line.

Paul Flynn: Can we destroy at birth the self-serving fantasy promulgated by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) that there has been a political consensus on pension policy in recent years? There was no consensus in 1980 for the cut in the link with earnings, or for the salami cuts over the following 17 years. There was no consensus in 1985 on the partial destruction of the state earnings-related pension scheme, which has done great damage. There was certainly no consensus on the policy in the late 1980s, when many people were tempted by the then Government to leave their good-value occupational schemes and go into atrocious-value personal pensions. We should have a good debate on this issue, but we must ensure that the blame is laid firmly where it belongs, which is not with the Government, because we opposed every one of those dangerous changes that have seriously impoverished today's pensioners and will impoverish tomorrow's pensioners.

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend and I were members of the same team in opposition on social security and pensions, and he was an excellent shadow spokesman on pensions.

Eric Forth: Those were the days.

Robin Cook: I prefer these days, and I suspect that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) also preferred it when he was on the Government side. My hon. Friend has had slightly longer to work on it, but he has given a much better reply than I did, and I commend him on it.

Brian Cotter: Can the Leader of the House help with a serious question that I asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on behalf of the small business community? I asked her to give a response to the Competition Commission's report on banking that was presented in October last year, and she said that she would publish the report as soon as practicable. That is an extraordinary, off-hand and cavalier response to a question that relates back to the Cruickshank report on banking, which was published two years ago this month. Can the Leader of the House help us to obtain a response to the report?

Robin Cook: The hon. Gentleman said that he asked my right hon. Friend to publish the report, but I think that he meant publish the Government's response to it.

Brian Cotter: Yes.

Robin Cook: It is important for the Government to ensure that the response is well thought through and consulted on, because it is not a matter of one Department reaching a view. It is important that time is taken to get it right, rather than rushing it. The time frame that the hon. Gentleman referred to is not unusual, but I am sure that the Department will be well aware of his anxiety to see the response.

David Chaytor: Following a week in which a Manchester United footballer signed a contract to earn £90,000 a week with the prospect of others being paid even more, in which ITV Digital announced that it was forced to renegotiate its contract with the Football League because it could not afford to pay the original price for television rights, and in which Bury football club in my constituency became the latest club in the lower divisions to go into receivership, does my right hon. Friend agree that the globalisation of football is having serious consequences for small clubs in the lower divisions, which many thousands of people support? Does he agree that those clubs have a vital role to play in their communities, as well as contributing to our national sporting life? May we have an early debate on the future of small professional football clubs?

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend is correct about the importance of football clubs to local communities and local identity, which is why I am delighted that Livingston football club is currently beaten in the Scottish league only by Rangers and Celtic. That has done wonders for identity and pride in the city for the people of Livingston and the residents of West Lothian. That shows the success that can be achieved by a small club that only six years ago was in the third division. I recognise that it is important that we have a proper range of football clubs in the various communities of Britain, and that we do not end up with only mega-clubs.
	These are choppy waters. I think that I have managed to build consensus in the House by avoiding controversy, but this matter is of such deep controversy outside it that although I shall report my hon. Friend's observations to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport, I am not inclined to go further at the present time.

Angela Browning: Will the Leader of the House be good enough to inquire now about the availability of Ministers to respond to urgent matters raised during the Easter Adjournment debate? I have used—and will continue to use—every opportunity to raise the urgent matter of the proposed demolition of important world war two buildings at the Dunkeswell airfield in my constituency. If I raise the matter in the Adjournment debate, it will be because I understand that Defence Estates has set a deadline of 1 April for the demolition of buildings that Defence Ministers previously have helped to preserve and that English Heritage has commended. If I do not get a positive response, I may end up spending my Easter recess chained to the control tower. I therefore hope that the Leader of the House will come to my rescue, and to the rescue of a very important world war two memorial site.

Robin Cook: I feel under a very strong compulsion to try to find a way to avert that fate for the hon. Lady, and to prevent her from spending her Easter recess in that way. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will be grateful for the advance notice of what the hon. Lady will raise in the Easter Adjournment debate, and I think that he is open to hearing other advance bids. I hope that the hon. Lady secures an outcome that is satisfactory for her constituents, but I am sure that we all look forward to hearing what she has to say in the debate.

Kyoto

Margaret Beckett: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the UK ratification of the Kyoto protocol.
	Following agreement at the European Community Environment Council on Monday, I am very pleased to announce that the Government have today laid the Kyoto protocol before both Houses of Parliament. This significant step begins the formal process of UK ratification of what is a hugely important protocol.
	This House is aware of the leading role that the Government have always played in the fight against climate change and, in particular, of the pivotal role played by my right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for the Environment in the original negotiations on the protocol in Kyoto. We have maintained that lead in subsequent negotiations, and we are making strong progress with implementing a strategic and innovative programme of action to reduce the UK's greenhouse gas emissions. I firmly believe that the UK, as well as the rest of world, has much to gain from meeting the challenge of climate change head-on.
	The deal that I helped to secure, first in Bonn and then in Marrakesh last year, was the latest in a series of major political achievements, and it paved the way for ratification. Since then, the EU has set an aim for the Kyoto protocol to enter into force in time for the world summit on sustainable development at the end of August. That summit marks the 10th anniversary of the Rio earth summit, which set up the UN framework convention on climate change in the first place. Although we do not expect or wish climate change, as such, to feature prominently on the summit's agenda, entry into force of the protocol before the summit takes place will demonstrate beyond doubt the world's commitment to taking its environmental responsibilities seriously.
	The Environment Council's agreement on Monday to the Council decision on European Community ratification and to the EU "bubble" was a significant milestone. This needed to happen first, so that the reduction targets agreed politically by each member state in 1998 became legally fixed. I was delighted with the outcome of the Council meeting, which followed some detailed and, at times, sensitive negotiations. It means that all member states can now complete their own national ratification procedures, and that the EU and its member states will be the first of the key developed countries to ratify the protocol.
	This Government are wasting no time in ensuring that the UK ratifies the protocol as soon as possible. Today's event marks the start of our process. The protocol will be before Parliament for the next 21 sitting days. At the end of that period, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will sign the UK's instrument of ratification. For legal and presentational reasons, the UK will deposit its instrument with the UN depository at the same time as the European Community and other member states. We aim to do that by June at the latest.
	UK ratification of the Kyoto protocol sends an important message to the world that we are committed to tackling climate change. It reaffirms the Government's pledge to meet our environmental objectives, and it meets our manifesto commitment to provide leadership abroad and work for international agreement on climate change.
	I hope very much that countries not yet committed to ratifying will follow the EU's lead. The House will know that the United States recently announced proposals for domestic action to tackle climate change. We welcome President Bush's acceptance that climate change is a serious problem and his increased support for climate science and climate-friendly innovation, but our analysis of his proposals suggests that US greenhouse gas emissions will be about 25 per cent. higher in 2010 than in 1990. That contrasts starkly with the 7 per cent. reduction to which the US had originally agreed under Kyoto.
	We continue to believe that the Kyoto protocol represents the only workable option allowing the international community to proceed with serious action on climate change, and we hope that the US will re-engage with the process. It is of course extremely important that we maintain a constructive dialogue with the Americans on climate change, and we will seek to establish a process through which that can be achieved.
	UK ratification will mean that we become legally bound by the target to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to 12.5 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2008 to 2012. Our climate change programme sets out a range of policies that could reduce emissions by 23 per cent. by 2010, which is well in excess of our Kyoto target and stands us in good stead for future reductions. The programme therefore also addresses the Government's ambitious domestic goal of cutting carbon dioxide emissions to 20 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2010.
	Our climate change programme is providing a strategic focus for action. It is stimulating positive action by UK businesses, local government and other organisations. It is encouraging longer-term changes and a move towards a low-carbon economy, and it is implementing a series of innovative and creative policies to ensure that the UK cuts its emissions in a flexible and cost-effective way.
	Let me highlight the key policies. We have established the world's first economy-wide emissions trading scheme, backed by a Government incentive of £215 million over five years. The scheme is due to go live early next month, and is one of our major priorities. Emissions trading is a cost-effective way of making a low-carbon future a reality. In pioneering the scheme, we hope and intend that the City of London will become the world centre for emissions trading.
	We have set a target to provide 10 per cent. of the UK's electricity from renewable sources of energy by 2010, backed by Government funding of at least £250 million over the next three years. We aim to double, at least, the UK capacity of combined heat and power by 2010. We will publish our draft CHP strategy shortly, along with a range of measures intended to achieve the target.
	We have introduced a climate change levy package that will help to fund measures to promote better energy efficiency in business; and we have established the Carbon Trust, which will recycle around £100 million of climate change levy receipts to boost the take-up of cost-effective low-carbon technologies. There are also a range of programmes and schemes to promote better energy efficiency in the domestic sector.
	At European Union level, we have secured voluntary agreements with car manufacturers to improve fuel efficiency by at least 25 per cent., backed up by changes in vehicle excise duty and company car tax to encourage more fuel-efficient low-emission cars. Our 10-year plan for transport will address projected emissions growth in that key sector.
	The programme takes account of what we might need to do to adapt to the effects of climate change in the UK. The Government are taking early action to identify adaptation priorities, and supporting the introduction of adaptation strategies on the ground through the UK climate impacts programme.
	Our programme also begins to establish policies to reduce emissions in the longer term, beyond 2012. We know that Kyoto, while important in itself, is only a first step, and that much deeper cuts in emissions will be needed if we are to avoid dangerous climate change. The Government are determined to continue towards a low-carbon economy in a way that benefits both the environment and UK industry. This is one reason why we commissioned the recent performance and innovation unit energy report, which we are now considering and to which we will respond later this year.
	I would like to finish by restating the Government's belief that meeting climate change targets will not only be good for the environment, but present new opportunities for businesses to improve energy efficiency, cut costs and get ahead of their international competitors by developing cleaner technologies and moving into new markets. It will present new job opportunities for people living and working in the UK, and will offer more choice for the consumer. We want to ensure that the UK makes the most that it possibly can of those opportunities, as well as making a strong and determined contribution to the global fight against climate change. Ratifying the Kyoto protocol is one of the most important steps on that road.

Peter Ainsworth: I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and for her courtesy in providing—on this occasion—timely notice of its content.
	The Opposition welcome the EU's progress towards ratification of the Kyoto protocol. Whatever the uncertainties about the science of climate change, most of us share an instinctive feeling that we will come to no good by pushing billions of tonnes of chemicals into the atmosphere. One does not have to be a scientist to work that out. Reconciling the material needs of today with the quality of life that we pass on to our children and grandchildren is one of the greatest tasks facing this generation of politicians across the world. We hold the earth in trust, and we must not fail generations to come.
	The Secretary of State rightly said that, although welcome, the Kyoto protocol is only an initial step. Is not its significance more symbolic than practical? Is it not an acknowledgement of the challenge that climate change presents rather than a blueprint for meeting it? Given that ratification will involve the Government's taking binding decisions that affect future policy, will she ensure that Parliament can have a full debate on the implications of ratification before taking further irrevocable steps towards binding commitments?
	Can the Secretary of State confirm that the treaty will not acquire full legal status until countries that account for 55 per cent. of global emissions have signed up? In the light of the United States' regrettable decision to opt out of the process for the time being, what threat does its absence pose to the project's eventual success? Does she agree that it is essential to make greater efforts to persuade Governments in the developing world that signing up to Kyoto is in the interests of their people and their future? A better global environment will mean a more secure world.
	None of that will happen without a cost. What estimate has the Secretary of State made of the possible cost to the United Kingdom economy of complying with the provisions of the protocol? Will she guarantee that the Government will not use the emissions trading arrangements to do a deal with a country such as Russia or Ukraine to avoid taking effective domestic action to reduce harmful emissions?
	The Kyoto protocol builds on the success of the Rio earth summit in 1992, and I hope that the Secretary of State will pay tribute to the leading role played by John Major in laying the foundations of an international agreement to tackle climate change. I note with some amusement that she paid tribute to the role of the Deputy Prime Minister, but did he not nearly derail the entire process in The Hague in November 2000, causing the French Environment Minister to say—if I recall rightly—that he lost his nerve, lost his cool and was a male chauvinist pig?
	Will the Secretary of State also acknowledge that Conservative energy policies of the 1990s have made the most substantial contribution to date to reducing UK greenhouse emissions? Is it not because of those policies that we have met, and even exceeded, early targets for reducing harmful emissions? Looking ahead, however, the picture is less rosy. Has she seen the report issued in January by Cambridge Econometrics that predicts that carbon emissions will fall by only 6.4 per cent. between 1990 and 2010—well short of the 20 per cent. target? Is she aware that, last month, the World Economic Forum branded the UK one of the dirtiest countries in the world?
	The Prime Minister is given to delivering pious sermons on the importance of environmental protection to the developing world. Will the right hon. Lady remind him that the 2002 environmental sustainability index ranks the UK 98th out of 142 countries? Among EU countries, only Belgium fares worse. When it comes to waste and recycling, the UK has just about the worst record on the planet. People who live in greenhouses should not throw stones. The issue of climate change is bigger and more important than domestic party politics, but is it not time that the Government recognised that there is a glaring disparity between their lofty election promises and statements made at international conferences and their performance at home?
	Is it not the case that while Switzerland, Germany and Austria have recycling rates of about 50 per cent., we achieve a mere 11 per cent., and that there is no realistic chance of most local authorities meeting the Government's target of 25 per cent. by 2005? Does the right hon. Lady accept that ill-targeted and bureaucratic taxes such as the climate change levy have, predictably, done nothing to reduce carbon emissions while piling costs on manufacturing?
	Who are this Government to lecture the world about being green, when as we speak, as a direct result of their incompetence, fridges containing highly damaging chlorofluorocarbons litter pavements, municipal sites, open spaces and fields throughout the country? Why, when the Government talk so enthusiastically about energy conservation, did the Minister for the Environment table wrecking amendments to the Home Energy Conservation Bill and then suffer the humiliation of having them voted down in Committee?
	The Secretary of State mentioned combined heat and power. Is she aware that the CHP industry is in crisis, that the Government's strategy is running four years late, that staff are being laid off because orders have dried up and that since the introduction of the new electricity trading arrangements last April, CHP output has dropped by 60 per cent.?
	The Secretary of State referred to the PIU report on energy, which after much delay was produced earlier this year. Is she aware that the energy industry is fed up with dithering and uncertainty, and needs clarity and leadership from the Government? There is a real danger that a great opportunity to put Britain at the forefront of developing new clean renewable technologies will pass us by if the Government continue to sit on their hands, bringing them out only to wring them hopelessly over the future of nuclear power.
	The right hon. Lady talked about the launch of the Government's emissions trading scheme due on 1 April. We support that in principle but are concerned by reports that only half the anticipated number of companies have signed up for it. How many companies have now committed themselves to participation? Can the Secretary of State confirm that the UK scheme is compatible with that being developed by the European Union?
	As in so many areas, the Government promised so much on the environment but they have not delivered. Given their performance to date, it is hard to understand why the right hon. Lady's entire statement had a strong flavour of self-congratulation. There is a great deal left to achieve; indeed, the task of delivering a cleaner environment is only just beginning. The Government will be judged not by the protocols and treaties that they sign or by the rhetoric that they use but by what they achieve for us, our children and our grandchildren.

Margaret Beckett: The hon. Gentleman began with what sounded like a high-minded welcome for progress—although, as he rightly said, it is only a start—but he ended up, as he usually does, whingeing on irrelevantly and not altogether pleasantly. Much of what he said was not relevant to the Kyoto protocol. I accept that we ought to seek a debate on the subject. It is not for me to set the agenda for the House, but I shall certainly draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I hope that if we do have a debate, it will be a debate about the Kyoto protocol and not a general rant about all the things that the hon. Gentleman thought of to throw in, most of which were highly inaccurate. I shall try to pick up on at least some of the issues that he raised.
	I am aware of the recent studies by Cambridge Econometrics. There is concern that there has been a slight increase in emissions in the last year, but we remain of the view that in the longer term we are on course to reach the targets that are being set.
	Towards the end of his remarks the hon. Gentleman asked about the emissions trading scheme. I am not aware of any suggestion that there is a smaller number of potential companies wishing to participate than we had anticipated. In fact, we are rather encouraged by the number, which was of the order of 40 to 45 when I last checked. Certainly there is no truth in the suggestion that it is half the number that we had anticipated.
	As for compatibility with the European Union scheme, I hope that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the Commission has made some preliminary proposals for a trading scheme. It is different in scope from our own in that it is mandatory, not voluntary. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that our scheme was designed in consultation with the private sector precisely to identify what would be most attractive. The Commission's mandatory scheme does not deal with all greenhouse gases, treats energy suppliers differently from our proposals and is not for an economy-wide set of proposals. The Commission's proposals are at the most preliminary stage. It does not even suggest that its scheme would come into force before 2005.
	Many other member states have some reservations and prefer some of the features of our scheme, so we have every hope that through constructive discussion we can reach a degree of compatibility. Certainly, we are extremely keen both that the whole European Union has experience in this important field, which has potential advantages for the future, and to ensure that there is enough flexibility in what is ultimately proposed for everyone to be able to participate.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about costs. I do not recall ever having seen a monetary figure. It has consistently been suggested that the cost of complying with the Kyoto protocol is somewhere between 0.1 and 1 per cent. of gross domestic product anticipated in developed countries over the commitment period, at a time when it is anticipated that growth will be of the order of 25 per cent. There is no suggestion, therefore, that the figure should be particularly difficult to meet.
	The hon. Gentleman asked whether the agreement was more symbolic than practical. No, there is huge symbolism and huge importance in having got a legally binding agreement with 177 countries participating. We are all sorry that the United States is not one of them. Even without its participation the reductions in emissions will be between 2 and 9 per cent., depending on one's assessment. That is certainly a worthwhile first step, particularly considering that we are talking about a legally binding first step.
	The hon. Gentleman was uncharitable—characteristically, I fear—about my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister who, indeed, made a considerable contribution to the agreement. I am happy to accept that the former Member for Huntingdon and the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who is with us today, made a contribution. It is admirable that Members from all parties have been instrumental in moving the debate and agreement forward.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the developing world. The Kyoto protocol encourages states in the developing world to take their own actions and to report what action they are taking. I share the view that that is necessary and desirable. I am also strongly of the view that there is justice in the argument that many of these problems have originated in the developed world and that it is for us to show that we are taking steps and then to encourage others to join us in doing the same.

Tam Dalyell: May I strongly support my right hon. Friends in their hard and sustained work on addressing these difficult problems? Could something more be said about the Carbon Trust and the recycling of £100 million of climate change levy receipts? Does my right hon. Friend have any sympathy with the view that targets will not be met without Sizewell C, Hunterston C and possibly Hinkley C?

Margaret Beckett: First, the Carbon Trust is doing interesting work with the business community. My hon. Friend may be aware that it believes that increased energy efficiency can make a massive contribution to meeting our targets, even without totally new technological developments of a kind that we cannot yet foresee. Indeed, it believes that we can meet our targets without further substantial change, although we all hope that innovation and new technology will come. There may be a misunderstanding. Although the performance and innovation unit energy review indicated that we should not close our minds to the future use of nuclear power, we do not require the fresh use and development of nuclear power to meet by 2012 the targets to which we signed up in the Kyoto protocol.

Andrew Stunell: I thank the Secretary of State for her courtesy in giving me early sight of her statement. The Liberal Democrats welcome the decision to ratify the Kyoto protocol. It is, in association with our European Union partners, an important symbolic step across the world that shows our determination to tackle climate change.
	I was also very pleased by the positive way in which the Secretary of State set out her statement, and by her acknowledgment of the work done on both sides of the House over a long period. She seems to accept that Kyoto can only be a first and comparatively small step in a long-term operation to slow down and stop global climate change. Liberal Democrats share that view. Will she agree that behind the words and the bold statement there are some gaps and fudges? I want to press her on some of those points.
	The reality is that the United Kingdom's Kyoto targets will be met more or less by accident, or willy-nilly. It was interesting to hear the shadow Secretary of State claim the credit for putting in place the policies that would achieve Kyoto. In fact, those policies were not put in place to achieve Kyoto but for entirely different reasons, and without regard for carbon dioxide emissions at the time. Does the Secretary of State agree that setting longer-term targets beyond Kyoto will be the test of United Kingdom policy for the future? Little progress has been made by the Government in setting those longer-term targets.
	Later today, the House will be asked to approve the renewables obligation that was debated in Committee yesterday. As the Secretary of State will agree, that obligation is for only 10 per cent. of the energy available to the electricity sector, even in 2027. Therefore, although it sets targets for 2010, it does not advance them beyond that. What targets and policies do the Government have to achieve energy saving and energy conservation? Her statement is short on that, as, I would submit, is Government policy.
	I am sure that the Secretary of State is only too well aware that the development of a carbon-free economy provides many opportunities for exports and growth in jobs in the United Kingdom. Will she confirm that those exports and jobs must be based on a strong home market? How will the United Kingdom develop that strong market?
	The Secretary of State's report referred to the energy review, and the Minister for the Environment said at Question Time that the Government were neither for nor against nuclear power. When will she give the House a clear commitment to move forward with renewable energy and abandon the nuclear option?
	We welcome the Secretary of State's words about engaging the United States in the fight against climate change. Clearly, its participation is vital to the long-term project. Will she assure the House that the Government will remain robust in their dialogue with the United States to try to persuade the world's largest contributor to man-made global climate change to mend its ways?
	Finally, I assure the Secretary of State that Liberal Democrats are strongly in favour of the Kyoto protocol being brought into effect across the world. We look forward eagerly to the steps beyond Kyoto, and we will encourage the Government to take those steps.

Margaret Beckett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome of the statement. I accept fully that signing the Kyoto protocol is very much the first step.
	The hon. Gentleman asked whether there were gaps in the scheme and whether it had been met by accident. I note that the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), claimed credit for the reductions that resulted from the devastation of the coal mining industry. However, he did not mention the fact that that did not occur cost free. Indeed, Conservative Members have been critical of the Government's handling of the coal industry since 1997. However, it is our estimate that the "dash for gas" will be responsible for only about 30 per cent. of the reductions that we anticipate will take place by 2010. Although that is not an insignificant contribution, it certainly does not mean, in the phrase of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), that we have met our targets by accident. The course of action that the Government have pursued will lead us to meet the targets.
	The hon. Gentleman pressed me on setting longer-term targets, but it is a little premature to do that. Certainly, work is beginning on the next Kyoto period and on what are practical and sensible targets for people to aim for in making a contribution to tackling global warming. The targets will have to be assessed against the new information that is becoming available over a steady period from the scientific work on the impact of climate change. It is a little bit of a moving feast in that respect. However, we shall come forward—perhaps in response to the PIU energy review and certainly over time—with further proposals and longer-term targets.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked me specifically about the renewables obligation and about whether we should set a more demanding target for that. It is important that we have the right balance between setting demanding targets and setting targets that we have practical means of meeting. One of the things that I found most encouraging from my exchange with the Father of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), is the degree to which we can meet the targets that we are currently setting without there being a giant expectation of a leap in the dark or of undiscovered science that has not yet been foreseen. It is important that we encourage and support innovation and that we set challenging targets while ensuring that they are not just pie in the sky. We must have practical means of achieving them.

David Miliband: I am delighted to welcome my right hon. Friend's strong efforts to take forward this important agenda. Kyoto is the key test for those of us who think that an interdependent world requires multilateral engagement.
	Will my right hon. Friend update the House on the technical and political work that is being done inside her Department on the so-called contraction and conversion approach to global pollution reduction? Many people believe that it is an innovative and equitable approach to tackling global climate change, and I would very much welcome her thoughts on its potential contribution.

Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. There is no question but that the contraction and convergence model is a serious proposal. My Department is considering it along with a range of other models. There is a strong case to be made for such a proposal, and it has a certain appealing, simple logic. However, it has serious implications for what is required of different nations so, in that sense, it must be weighed against the wish to get everyone moving in the same direction.

John Gummer: I congratulate the Secretary of State on the achievement of a process that has gone on for a long time under both Governments. Both sides of the House should emphasise the commonality of interest in achieving these ends.
	Does the Secretary of State not agree that one of the highlights of the process was the agreement, under the previous Government, and its support, under this Government, of the European bubble and the European bubble principle in which those nations most able to do more achieve more so that the least-able nations do not have to reach the targets that would otherwise be set for them? Does that not set an admirable example to the rest of the world and, particularly, in respect of the future incorporation of developing countries? Should we not say that the European Union has proved its worth enormously on this issue as on so many others?

Margaret Beckett: I am happy to pay tribute to the decision to establish the EU "bubble". The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct; it was key to agreement within the EU. He is also right to say that the role that the EU played as a united group in the negotiations was absolutely key. There is no question about that.
	The hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) accused me earlier of self-praise, but this is not self-praise. Other Ministers who participated in the negotiations in Bonn and Marrakesh have said forcefully that the united role that the EU played enabled us to act as broker to agreement, first, politically in Bonn and then to the legal text in Marrakesh. That was crucial.
	The right hon. Gentleman has heard me say this on a public platform recently, but I freely say again, as someone who campaigned against our remaining in the European Community as it was in 1975, that the behaviour of the EU as a group in the negotiations has been a model of everything everyone ever hoped for from that agreement.

Gareth Thomas: I add to the congratulations to my right hon. Friend and her colleagues on reaching the accord and on the work that supports it. Given the significant potential job opportunities in renewable technologies, in manufacturing and in rural economies that might result from support of the Kyoto accord, does she not think that, with the benefit of hindsight, the decision of the Conservative party to cut various renewable energy funding streams appears short-sighted? By contrast, will she tell the House what further support she is lobbying the Treasury to provide under the comprehensive spending review for renewable energy technologies?

Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the implications of some of the mistakes that were made earlier in cutting funding for renewables. He is also right to draw attention to the considerable job and trading opportunities that the agreement creates. Indeed, one of the schemes that the Government are pursuing—the home energy efficiency scheme—was delayed because there were insufficient people with the right skills and training to carry it out. That is another aspect of achieving agreement to practical and deliverable steps.
	My hon. Friend is right to say that there are huge opportunities for Britain and for the EU in the agreement. We hope to take advantage of them.

Simon Thomas: On behalf of the Plaid Cymru-SNP group, I welcome the Government's action in ratifying the Kyoto protocol. Although there is cross-party agreement on the issue, may I invite the Secretary of State to condemn certain political parties who mouth pious words in the House about renewables but who oppose all exciting wind farm projects, such as that in my constituency?
	On the opportunities provided for renewables in the domestic agenda, does the Secretary of State agree that, if we were to double the target from 10 to 20 per cent.—that is completely feasible—we would produce 80 TWh a year from renewables, which equates very closely to the 88 TWh produced from nuclear power at the moment? Not only do we not need nuclear to meet the present Kyoto protocol, but we do not need it to meet the forthcoming 2050 targets. We can meet them with a combination of renewables and low-carbon technology.
	Finally, will the Secretary of State tell us what the Prime Minister did on his recent visit to Australia? Did he discuss these matters with the Australian Prime Minister, because it is important to get Australia, which is a key Asiatic economy, on board as well?

Margaret Beckett: Yes, indeed. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did discuss these issues with the Australian Government, as he does assiduously at all his international talks. He is very interested and engaged in that area of policy.
	I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks and for his support. I note what he said about what I take to be the Liberal Democrats, and I do of course share the concern of those who say that it is important not only to be in favour of the principle of some of these issues but to be prepared to take and to back some of the practical decisions, even though they are not always easy.
	The hon. Gentleman will know, I hope, that the PIU report did recommend that we double our target for renewables to 20 per cent. The Government obviously take that recommendation very seriously. It is one of the issues that we must consider and discuss when we contemplate our response to that report. I would only say to the hon. Gentleman that although it is desirable to increase renewables, it is also important, as I told my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey), that we ensure that the targets that we set are practical and that we believe that we can achieve them, although the hon. Gentleman is certainly right to say that we can have a much more substantial contribution from renewables than we have had hitherto.

Jeremy Corbyn: The Secretary of State will recall that at the Rio summit 10 years ago there was a very clear requirement on all signatory nations to establish local sustainability groups. In this country, many hundreds of such groups have been established and have often worked with great effort and vigour towards sustainable transport plans, a sustainable built environment and sustainable employment practices locally.
	What will be done to ensure that the work is better co-ordinated; that those groups are better empowered to have influence on local planning and other decisions, and above all that those people, who are putting enormous effort into this area, feel that their views are being listened to and feel that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is able to take on board many of their suggestions so that, when we reach Rio plus 10, there will be some recognition of the great work that has been done locally? At the end of the day, only local pressure will ensure that sustainable development plans actually bear fruit.

Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend is correct. As he said, a great deal is happening in local communities, with local community plans and development. Certainly it is part of the focus of my Department, as we work towards the world summit in September, to encourage schoolchildren in particular to become involved in working through plans for their area and focusing on what can be done locally. I share my hon. Friend's view that this is a very important contribution. I am also mindful of the fact that, on some issues where there are difficult choices to be made, such as waste management, it is where local communities have become engaged and have had those discussions that there is the greatest agreement and support for practical proposals to solve those issues. I therefore share his view that such participation is important and we shall continue to try to work with such local groups.

Nick Gibb: In the answer that the right hon. Lady gave to the important question asked by the Father of the House, she was very careful to limit her answer to periods up to 2012. What will happen to British CO 2 emissions after 2012, assuming that the decommissioned Magnox power stations are not replaced by new nuclear build?

Margaret Beckett: I limited my remarks to the period up to 2012 because that is the Kyoto commitment period, as the hon. Gentleman clearly understands. There is a danger that after 2012, unless we take further action, there will be an increase in emissions, and it is for all of us to consider how best we can tackle that. The PIU report suggested that we should keep open the option of nuclear energy for that reason, but there are others who argue, as the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) did a minute ago, that we can meet that challenge by using renewables or other means. It is an issue that we must all consider and address, but the hon. Gentleman probably knows that at present any new proposals for any development or continuation of nuclear power would have to come from the industry, and at the moment there are no such proposals.

Vernon Coaker: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and everyone else responsible for today's immensely important statement. Will my right hon. Friend consider how we can involve individuals in this process? It is the actions of individuals as well as those of Government that will bring about real change with respect to Kyoto. Will she consider how her Department could inform the British public and others about what the Kyoto climate change movement means, and what action they can take as individuals to bring about that worthwhile change? It is my view that as a country, as a world, as a planet, we are sleepwalking to disaster if we cannot bring about very real change in our individual behaviour as well as the behaviour of Governments.

Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important and powerful point and he will know that the Government already have various programmes in place. Through the Energy Saving Trust, for example, we offer people advice about what they can do personally to increase energy efficiency, which both lowers their costs and is beneficial from the point of view of climate change. My hon. Friend knows that at present a PIU review study is taking place on the handling of waste, and there is little doubt in my mind that when that report is published it will have something to say about how we minimise our creation of waste as well as how we deal with it. My hon. Friend is quite right that, in all these areas, there are actions that individuals as well as communities not only can take but will need to take if we are to tackle these problems. My Department will be taking forward that work and publishing further research in the developing science of the impact of climate change.

Gregory Barker: May I join others in welcoming the announcement and the Secretary of State's commitment to meeting the challenge of climate change head-on? However, I share the unease of my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) that the fine rhetoric does not match the Secretary of State's record. Is she aware of the submission that the Sustainable Development Commission—a commission set up by the Prime Minister in October 2000—made last week to the Select Committee on Environmental Audit, which stated:
	"Looking beyond 2010, the public policy levers which would be needed to ratchet down production of greenhouse gas emissions have not been put into place. The UK's current performance on renewables is poor, and the current target that 10 per cent. of electricity should be supplied by renewables will not be met unless institutional barriers like the new electricity trading arrangements are addressed"?

Margaret Beckett: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that we are discussing how those barriers can be overcome, and that we have said several times that we have every intention of overcoming them. We anticipate publishing the new combined heat and power strategy in the near future. As for the commitment to renewables, a substantial programme of investment is planned, as there is in a range of energy efficiency and other programmes. While none of us would argue that enough is being done, a substantial amount is being done, and rather more than was being done when the party that the hon. Gentleman supports was last in power.

Paul Flynn: In congratulating my right hon. Friend, may I urge her to pay more attention to a neglected form of power that is almost eternally renewable, is British and can offer a huge source of power—the tidal range in the Severn estuary, where there is the highest rise and fall of tide in the world, very near to centres of population? Should we not regard that as a clean, environmentally friendly source of power that can eliminate altogether more development in the unpopular and expensive nuclear industry?

Margaret Beckett: Indeed, I share, as I believe do many in the House, my hon. Friend's concern that we do more to exploit the natural advantages of the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend knows that there is a substantial programme of investment in research into such subjects and the Government will continue to support and advance it.

Colin Challen: In congratulating the Front-Bench team on getting us to this marvellous announcement today, and especially congratulating the Deputy Prime Minister on almost singlehandedly saving the Kyoto process a few years ago, may I ask my right hon. Friend to pay special regard to the potential cost to this nation of now ratifying the treaty? Sometimes treaties of this nature can have a competitive cost to a country, placing it at a disadvantage to those countries that are not prepared to sign up to these proposals. In that regard, will we robustly argue with the United States that it must sign up, and that if it does not, we will robustly defend our competitive position?

Margaret Beckett: First, I rather suspect that one of the things that will ultimately have an effect in the United States is that it will realise that it is missing out on employment and trading opportunities as a result of not being engaged in the process. My hon. Friend is right to say that there are obviously costs and implications, as well as those opportunities, but I am confident that the overall balance is to the United Kingdom's advantage and will continue to be so. I simply remind him of the simple, but evocative phrase that companies saving carbon are companies saving money.

Personal Statements

Ben Bradshaw: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a personal statement. During the heat of debate, strong feelings are expressed on both sides of the House. I hope that, in my time here, I have always shown proper respect for the occupant of the Chair and observed his or her rulings. As you will be aware, Mr. Speaker, I was not asked by the Deputy Speaker in Westminster Hall yesterday to withdraw my remarks when they were made. However, on reflection, I accept that it would have been better if I had not used the phrase that I applied to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway), and I am sorry for the offence that was caused.

George Galloway: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a personal statement. In the debate in Westminster Hall yesterday, exchanges became frank to the point of being unacceptable, and I should like to apologise to the Deputy Speaker in Westminster Hall, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam), to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House for my part in that. The issues under discussion were of grave urgency and importance, and they mean a very great deal to me. Exchanges on both sides of the argument were decidedly robust. None the less, I should like to say that I am sorry for stepping out of parliamentary order and for my failure to withdraw my remarks when asked to do so by the Deputy Speaker and now to withdraw them.

ESTIMATES DAY
	 — 
	[2nd Allotted Day]
	 — 
	SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 2001-02
	 — 
	Environmental Audit

Considered pursuant to Resolution [5 February] and Standing Order No.145 (Liaison Committee) [Relevant documents: Second Report from the Environmental Audit Committee, Session 2001-02, on Pre-Budget Report 2001: A New Agenda? HC 363-I; and The Chancellor of the Exchequer's Departments: Annual Report 2001, Cm 5116.]
	Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That further resources, not exceeding £3,020,000, be authorised for use during the year ending on 31st March 2002, and that a sum, not exceeding £3,020,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund for the year ending on 31st March 2002 for expenditure by HM Treasury.—[Mr. Woolas.]

John Horam: I should like to thank all my colleagues on the Environmental Audit Committee and the staff and advisers to the Committee for the work that they have done. As evidence of the Committee's hard work, I refer to the fact that, this week alone, we have taken evidence from the Deputy Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for International Development and the chairman of the Sustainable Development Commission, Jonathon Porritt, as well as participating in this debate—several of my colleagues are here today. Last week, we spent three days in Germany investigating renewable energy. As one of my colleagues remarked, I am sure that we would qualify for a charter mark for activity if they were awarded to Select Committees.
	The debate today is billed as being about environmental taxation policy. That is a rather narrow and, in many ways, unhelpful overall title. It is narrow because, as our report on the Chancellor's pre-Budget report makes clear, we considered the whole gamut of ways in which Treasury policy can affect the environment: taxation, subsidies, investment, incentives, negotiated self- regulation, trading systems and so on. So the issue is not just about taxation. It is unhelpful because talk of environmental taxation inevitably invites the suspicion that this is another Treasury stealth tax by a different name.
	I believe that concern for the environment is part of the natural evolution of a civilised, modern society that has come to understand that the quality of life is not just a matter of the standard of living It is about time that the Treasury wholeheartedly and intelligently joined in that debate; it is essential that it does so if we are to make progress. That is why I rather like the concept of sustainable development, which is occasionally rather well defined as treating the world as though we intended to stay. That concept contains the idea of a balance between all three important elements: economic, social and environmental issues.
	The fact is that we can benefit economically from good environmental ideas. There is the possibility of a win-win situation. Indeed, given how other countries—Germany and Denmark, for example—handle waste treatment, renewable energy, fuel cell technology and so on, I am becoming concerned that the United Kingdom may fall behind economically because it does not give enough priority to environmental technology. I am afraid that the opposite of win-win is lose-lose, and we must not get ourselves into that situation.
	I received for Christmas from a well-meaning friend a now famous book, by Bjorn Lomberg, called "The Sceptical Environmentalist". It is a fairly heavy academic tome, and I would not recommend it as bedtime reading. It certainly provides a healthy corrective to the more apocalyptic notions that sometimes hold sway in environmental quarters, but nothing in it denies the need for a sensible and precautionary approach to sustainable development.
	When I visit local schools—as I did last Friday, to talk about globalisation and development—I am struck by the fact that many young people understand the relevance of concern for the environment, based on their knowledge of science and geography as taught in school. In Westminster Hall, only yesterday, we debated the participation of young people in politics. If politicians seriously want to capture the enthusiasms of the young, we would do well to talk more about the environment and the problems and challenges of globalisation than we do at the moment. That is particularly true in a year when the world summit on sustainable development will take place in Johannesburg.

Gareth Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman join me in congratulating the students of Rooks Heath high school in my constituency on today being awarded a certificate for their successful activities in increasing the school's use of renewable energy and energy-saving materials? Will he also join me in congratulating the continued, excellent judgment of my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in taking the time, while preparing for today's debate, to visit that school this morning to present that certificate?

John Horam: That is an example of thinking locally and acting globally.
	The Johannesburg meeting on world sustainable development will take place, by design, 10 years after the Rio summit and, by accident, nearly a year after the terrible events that took place in New York last September. Although we have, rightly, had to tackle terrorism by military means, a proper commitment to sustainable development is part of the answer to tackling the causes of terrorism.

John Gummer: Does my hon. Friend agree that both events should remind the United States of the fact that it is impossible for any nation to act in isolation, that all of us depend on global solutions to global problems and that none of us ought to opt out?

John Horam: I profoundly agree with my right hon. Friend. Just because the United States is so powerful, it should not forget that we live in an interdependent world. I hope therefore that the Financial Secretary will convey to the Prime Minister my desire that he persuade George Bush to go to Johannesburg, just as Mrs. Thatcher persuaded his father to go to Rio. If that were to happen, it would send a positive signal about US intentions, which would help to repair the damage caused by its initial reaction to the Kyoto protocol, which we discussed earlier today. I hope that the Government will take that on board.
	Our verdict on the Chancellor's November statement was that it was a serious disappointment. In the last Parliament—indeed, in his first Budget—the Chancellor issued a statement of intent on environmental taxation. It was an admirable statement and many people hoped that, at the beginning of the second Parliament of the Labour Government, he would take the opportunity to reaffirm those objectives and re-commit himself to those goals.
	Unfortunately, the Chancellor did nothing of the kind. The pre-Budget statement contained only one paragraph on environmental issues, the substance of which was that the Government were consulting from today—the day of the pre-Budget statement—on a total of 10 new environmental measures.
	On page 11 of our report, hon. Members will see that we have analysed those 10 measures one by one, which is precisely the careful scrutiny that a Committee of our kind should undertake. We discovered that only one of the 10 measures could be characterised as new. In only three of the 10 was consultation beginning on that day. If one defines "today" so as to include "tomorrow", it becomes four but, none the less, it is clearly not 10. Wherever this comes in the hierarchy of spin, I suggest that it is a considerable exaggeration of what the Government are doing in this area.
	I am not accusing the Government of doing nothing at all. Indeed the Committee rightly praised many of the measures in the last Parliament that were taken with the considerable support of the Treasury; I am glad to see the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in his place. We should say also that the Government have succeeded in setting up the right kind of machinery inside government for developing policies on sustainable development in a coherent way. However, at some stage, process must produce delivery and that is where the Government have been so disappointing.
	I contrast the situation in the UK with what we found in Germany last week. In Germany, there is a strong energy policy, with substantial environmental investment by the Government who were already having the spin-off of creating a large number of new jobs, as well as important export opportunities for German business. Here we have simply the performance and innovation unit report; a worthy document, but one which comes to no clear conclusions. We are just talking; in Germany, they are acting.

Simon Thomas: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we could compare and contrast the problems with the new electricity trading arrangements that we have in this country, and the combined heat and power access within that, with the decision of the German Government to change their electricity metering law to allow ordinary household users to use photovoltaic cells and import directly into the grid? That cannot be done here.

John Horam: The hon. Gentleman was present in Germany and is right. Another advantage of Select Committee-type scrutiny is that we can analyse Government figures carefully. I noted that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said in her statement on Kyoto that the Government were putting £250 million behind renewable energy. We have analysed the figures carefully in the document. If the Financial Secretary to the Treasury looks at it, he will find that, in cash terms, the figure is much smaller if one takes out the double counting. Indeed, it will fall to £135 million next year.
	As the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) has just said, there are considerable problems as a consequence of the measure in the renewable energies industry. CHP companies are packing up the investment that they had taken previously. The Government's rhetoric, in terms of the Prime Minister's statement before the last election, was admirable. Their delivery has been extremely poor.
	It does seem that we are over-cautious in our approach and, perhaps because of the power of the Treasury, too finance-oriented. The German approach seems to be a matter of trying to devise a strategy and then worrying about the necessary finance later. Our approach seems to be exactly the contrary; to worry about the money and then to come up with a rather limited approach, which simply does not do the business.

Colin Challen: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the attitude of the German economic ministry is to subsidise and support a nascent environmental industry, so that it can stand on its own two legs and compete in the wider world, having created a new technology? Does he agree that to support such an industry is the right approach?

John Horam: I agree emphatically with the hon. Gentleman and that is why I said that this is a debate about investment—and precautionary investment of the kind that he is talking about—just as much as it is about moving taxation from "goods" to "bads". There will be all-party support for a coherent approach.
	Finally, I shall mention three specific areas where I think that the Government should take action as a result of the report. The first is to reform VAT to remove the present tax disincentive that works in favour of greenfield development and against brownfield development. In the present circumstances, that is an anachronism.
	Secondly, on waste disposal, there is now consensus across political parties and among the various interests that the landfill tax should be substantially increased. I have never heard of a situation before in which a Chancellor is being urged to increase tax by almost everybody and yet does not do it. Something must have happened to the normal Treasury reactions.
	Finally, the Government must sort out their energy policy. We have commented on this previously and I feel that here is an opportunity that this country should not miss. The report is vigorous and critical, but, I believe, fair. I believe that the Government should act upon it.

Jane Griffiths: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), who has a long and distinguished record on all environmental matters. I am grateful for the opportunity to make a couple of points on environmental taxation.
	The Government's policy of shifting taxation from environmental "goods" to environmental "bads" is working. The reduced burden of taxation on road fuel gases has been put in place in recognition of their excellent emissions profile. When liquefied petroleum gas burns, virtually all that is produced is carbon dioxide and water, and even the carbon dioxide that is emitted is significantly less than that emitted by conventionally fuelled cars.
	The result of this "greening" taxation has been to stimulate and grow a market of 50,000 vehicles to date running on LPG. That is a growth from virtually nil only a few years ago. It is certainly going in the right direction. The London congestion charge will also, I suspect, be a stimulus because most LPG cars will be exempt.
	The potential market for LPG vehicles is far from being reached. In Japan, which has specific congestion and pollution problems, virtually all the taxis run on LPG and the country is one of the highest users of LPG in the world. Italy has the highest number of vehicles running on the fuel, with around 1.2 million, followed by South Korea and Australia.
	Her Majesty's Treasury, I have noted, takes a rather cautious approach to shifting the burden of taxation, probably rightly. It has a natural horror of deadweight expenditure. The result is that environmental benefits—many of them now quantifiable in cash terms and lives saved—are sometimes slower to be delivered than they might otherwise be.
	A good example of that is the company car tax regime, which is being gradually reshaped to bear down on the gas-guzzlers and the heavy carbon emitters. It is an area that could do with some joined-up policy thinking. It reflects a current separation between the climate change anti-carbon policy and the air quality anti-pollution policy. Company car taxation addresses carbon but does not yet adequately address pollutants. The importance of this is that it is among company fleets that the most dramatic gain can be produced, by choosing LPG over traditional fuels. A greater recognition of the desirability of LPG over petrol and diesel should be built into the car tax regime.
	For instance, the fuel scale charges and VAT charges are at present not only heavy on the use of LPG, but unfair, since consumption of LPG is taxed as if it cost the same as petrol or diesel, despite the fact that it is only half the price.
	Environmental taxation has not been deployed to refrigerants. Most fridges and cooling systems in the United Kingdom run on hydroflurocarbons, which are recognised as highly damaging by contributing to global warming. The trouble is that HFCs leak at a rate of 30 per cent. a year on distributed systems. The UK has to an extent relied on voluntary actions to improve the leakage, and that approach is given solemn lip service. Far be it from me to suggest that manufacturers have a vested interest in selling as much top-up HFC as they can.
	The UK policy is delineated in the climate change UK programme, which states:
	"HFCs should only be used where other safe, technically feasible, cost-effective and more environmentally acceptable alternatives do not exist . . . HFCs are not sustainable in the long term".
	So we rely on exhortation to produce change in the private sector. When we examine the pattern of procurement in the public sector, we find that the record is—if I am to be generous—patchy. If ever there was a case for a new economic instrument, this is it. I plead with my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to consider that.

Matthew Taylor: The Environmental Audit Committee is an innovation for which we argued, and it is most welcome. It is a pity, however, that it did not get the powers that the Labour party in opposition envisaged for it. The idea was that it would be similar to the Public Accounts Committee, with the back-up and resources to do detailed work. All Select Committees suffer from a lack of resources. Although that applies to the Environmental Audit Committee, it has done some extremely good work nevertheless. The Minister needs to reflect carefully on its report. It makes a well argued and strong indictment against the state of environmental tax reform some five years into the Government's term in office.
	As with any policy development, we need proper research and analysis of the problems to design effective environmental taxes. If we are not clear about the damage that is being done or the policy tools that are being used to address it, we are not going to be effective. Research and analysis do not take place as they should in government in general. There are far too few trials and too little analysis of whether Government policies are effective after they have been implemented. I have criticised the Chancellor before for introducing endless bureaucratic targeted schemes, few of which, if any, are properly analysed for their effectiveness subsequently in either cost or policy terms. The Select Committee report makes it clear that that is undoubtedly true of the Government's policies on environmental taxation.
	The Committee criticises Treasury research as "inadequate". It states that:
	"the Treasury is failing to provide adequate leadership and co-ordination".
	It highlights the appalling, although typical, refusal by the Treasury to publish key information. It not only calls on the Government to make reports on sustainable development available to it, but points out that if the Treasury continues to keep secrets, the reports must, at the very least, be released to the National Audit Office because they are—or should be—a crucial part of the comprehensive spending review process.
	The Committee also rightly criticises the lack of joined-up thinking across Government. The Government talk about that a great deal, but too often they fail to deliver on it. If the sustainable development unit is a cross-government resource, it needs to be involved in evaluating the sustainable development reports. If it is not, a suitable body needs to be created to do that.
	The Treasury's worst record is on allowing public evaluation of its policies, which applies across the board, not just to environmental taxation. The House and the general public lack the opportunity to see the conclusions of audits of policies that are implemented by the Treasury and other Departments that it encourages to act in the same way. The reports have to be made public or their value becomes diminished. I support the Committee's call to have a unit within the Treasury which is responsible for environmental taxes, developing resource productivity indicators, monitoring the adequacy of environmental appraisal and co-ordinating a more strategic approach.

Mark Francois: The hon. Gentleman has probably seen the press release that the Environmental Audit Committee issued to accompany its report. Following his important point on access to departmental sustainable development reports, is he aware that the press release says:
	"It is particularly outrageous that the Treasury is proposing to keep secret sustainable development reports submitted as part of spending review 2002. This will make it impossible for Parliament to hold Departments properly to account"?

Matthew Taylor: Not only am I aware of that comment, but I strongly welcome it. We could understand the Treasury not making the reports public when it draws up the review, but it is a different matter when it keeps them secret thereafter, because that makes proper scrutiny of Government policy impossible. Sadly, it is not just environmental issues to which that applies. It is a long-running failure on the part of the Treasury, and it is getting worse year by year, as any hon. Member who has tabled parliamentary questions to the Treasury knows because they are stonewalled time and time again.
	The Minister needs to recognise just how strong the report is. It has been produced by a cross-party Committee with a majority of Labour Members, and concludes:
	"We strongly regret the refusal of the Treasury to provide us with the Spending Review main Guidance".
	It comments that that
	"vividly demonstrates that the Treasury will only share what it does not value or consider important."
	That is a pretty good summary of the position that this Government at least have managed to get into with regard to making information available.
	It is even more worrying that when we cross-question the Government, as the Committee and hon. Members have done, on their evaluation of implemented policy—policies on which money has already been spent—the answer is frequently that there is no systematic evaluation of their effectiveness. I strongly welcome the report's request that the Government should fulfil their commitment to incorporate systematic ex post appraisals in future pre-Budget reports. However, Committee members should be aware that the appraisals often do not appear because they do not exist, even in the Treasury. The Committee also says:
	"We find it difficult to understand how the Government can decide what is the most appropriate policy mechanism, if it is not able to assess the effect of different policy instruments. We urge the Government to clarify how it proposes to develop appraisal and monitoring systems on a more comprehensive basis."
	An overriding conclusion of what this and other Governments have done on environmental tax is that too often they have grabbed the green mantle in a way that simply hides the fact that the Treasury takes decisions that largely suit it. For example, the decision to opt for the climate change levy rather than a carbon tax was politically driven; it had nothing to do with best environmental practice. As a result, not only did that decision put huge administrative burdens on business in particular and, incidentally, on the Government, but the Government have been forced almost ever since to go through an endless process of rejigging the climate change levy in a desperate effort to make it work either environmentally or administratively.

John Gummer: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Government have admitted that the reduction of emissions annually as a result of the climate change levy is less than the increase in emissions caused by the moratorium on gas-fired power stations? The fact that the Government at the time said that such an increase was immaterial shows just how small an effect such an enormously complicated system has on the environment.

Matthew Taylor: One great problem with the climate change levy is that it is not terribly effective in changing the way in which businesses operate. The whole point of adopting a carbon tax would be to tackle carbon use, which the levy fails to do. Although various efforts have been made to get round that problem, the situation is still far from ideal. In addition, the levy was introduced in one big block. A carbon tax could be phased in gradually in order to affect the real decision-making process of long-term capital investment, rather than penalise companies for past investment, as the levy has done, long after they are able to change those decisions. So, although the levy may be a stick of sorts, it provided little carrot and flogged a dead horse, since most investment decisions that it penalises have long since been taken.

Ian Lucas: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify whether he would support the introduction of a carbon tax that applied to individual consumers as well as business?

Matthew Taylor: My view on that matter has been consistent, and was presented in our manifesto in 1997, when the Government were first considering the matter. A carbon tax is the only way to address the matter successfully. By its very nature, it must apply to all fuels and therefore to all users on the basis of carbon use, but revenues could be directly used to compensate users. If they used more carbon energy, they would pay more; if they used less, they would pay less. However, ordinary people could be compensated from the revenue raised. I shall touch on that issue a little more in a moment.
	It was precisely because the Government were not prepared even to countenance the possibility that households would be hit that they ended up with such an ungainly and relatively ineffective tax. You pays your money and you takes your choice, but it is rather unfortunate to end up with a system that is administratively highly expensive yet does not deliver the goods terribly well.
	I want briefly to raise three issues. The first is landfill tax and the waste stream. Government policy on waste is in a mess; many Members represent constituencies that are in the process of trying to sort out that mess. Landfill is becoming expensive and less viable, but the Government are giving no clear steer on the approach that local authorities should take, and some decisions are having perverse financial effects. I am one of those who believes that incineration should be included in a levy system, but we need a comprehensive strategy for waste. The lack of such a strategy is a failing of the Government's approach to environmental taxation. They have taken on odd, individual items rather than providing a joined-up, overall strategy.
	I have worked hard in Cornwall to move the county away from a proposal for an incinerator. I think that we have succeeded. Cornwall Environmental Services—the company that deals with waste in the county—has withdrawn its proposals and is looking for other, better, more environmental solutions. Until the Government either take the decision on their public finance initiative bid for investment in recycling facilities close to homes, so that recycling makes environmental sense, or sort out their approach to incineration and its alternatives, it will be very difficult for any local authority to give a coherent lead. We need a lead from the Government.
	Similarly, the development of the countryside is a huge issue—in my part of the country and in the constituencies of many Members. The Government say that they want more brownfield rather than greenfield development, but as the EAC report accurately states, at the moment there are perverse incentives to develop greenfield land. As a result, previously developed areas, particularly in inner-city areas, are being allowed to run down. The re-development of such brownfield sites is subject to a huge VAT burden that does not apply to greenfield development. That cannot make sense. In several Budgets, I have expected the Government to announce some action on the matter, but they have failed to do so.
	In a country where there is a shortage of land, the value of development land is dictated by the amount that people are prepared to pay for the properties that are eventually built on it. So, not levying VAT on greenfield development affects not the eventual price of properties built but the price of land sold for development—a windfall gain for the owners of the land and an incentive for developers to find such land. The system needs urgent restructuring, and I welcome the fact that the report highlights that.
	Nobody should feel—I hope—that I do not believe that environmental taxes could play a crucial part in how we address the environmental issues that we face. The biggest of those is catastrophic climate change, although we also see the destruction of our countryside. I shall give one other example of importance—the aggregates tax. I have always believed that the aggregates tax could play a major, beneficial role in encouraging re-use of waste material rather than raw extraction in many of the most beautiful parts of the UK countryside. I welcome the fact that the Government have gone down that route, but it might be helpful to touch on how positive an impact a well-designed environmental tax can have.
	I have in my constituency the largest area of opencast china clay mining anywhere in Europe. The china clay industry tipped more waste material in my small part of Cornwall than the coal industry's entire output when it operated on a large scale in the early 1980s. Therefore, there is a huge waste issue in our part of the country. For 250 years, that waste material has successfully been used in road building in the county of Cornwall. Therefore, there is no doubt that such waste material can be used successfully as an aggregate. Indeed, I notice in reports on the state of Cornwall's roads that despite very low investment we have among the best roads in the country primarily because they were built using an awful lot of aggregate material and they tend not to break up as much as roads in other parts of the country.
	In 1999, 500,000 tonnes of china clay waste material was used locally. Just 2,000 tonnes was taken out of the county by sea in an experiment to find out whether there was a market for such material in the Thames area. In 2000, 890,000 tonnes were used locally as Cornwall county council in particular followed a policy of using such waste material as much as possible. As part of the same experiment, 19,000 tonnes left the county in that year—mainly for the south coast but even to Germany.
	By 2001, as the company began to gear up in the knowledge of the aggregates tax and to build up facilities for using the material, it managed to make use of 1.3 million tonnes of waste material—53,000 tonnes going out by sea. The dramatic change as a result of the aggregates tax is that, this year, the company expects to reach a figure of 1.6 million tonnes, with at least 200,000 tonnes leaving from Par docks. However, it is being told by the people whom they supply that, once the aggregates levy comes through, it can expect much higher levels of demand, which could add another 300,000 tonnes to the total. Therefore, as much as 500,000 tonnes will go out by sea this year in comparison with just 2,000 in 1999. Therefore, no one should be in any doubt that such measures can make a difference.
	Incidentally, such good news can be set against the gradual reduction in the number of jobs in the china clay industry, as there has been an announcement today that another 300 local jobs are to be lost.
	Yesterday, I understand that there was a meeting at the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on the bid that has been put together by the Strategic Rail Authority, those administering objective 1 money in the county, Imerys—the main china clay company—and the DLTR for a major rail upgrade of clay rail routes and two new berths at Par. I hope that Treasury Ministers will get behind the bid. The project is set to cost more than £20 million, but it is believed that it will raise the tonnage of waste material to between 5 million and 7 million tonnes. With other local re-use, that means that all the waste from the china clay industry that can be used will be used, making substantial savings for the environment, not just locally but in other parts of the country, as well as protecting jobs.
	It is worth bearing in mind that environmental measures can be effective. In my part of the world, the aggregates levy is doing exactly what it was designed to do. There is one problem, which affects the small, family-owned, traditional quarries that used to supply those services within Cornwall. The Government failed to offer them any alternative route for their businesses, and many of them fear that without some sort of invested support for new avenues of business, they will face sudden collapse through no fault of their own. We should consider giving them more of the resources that will come in to help them cope with the change. When they approach me, I tell them that change is the point of the policy, but I agree that they need help with the process of change.
	The flaws are larger than the successes. On the whole, the measures have been badly targeted. Taxation of carbon has been wholly inconsistent, ranging from high rates on vehicle fuels to nothing on aviation fuel. The climate change levy is a muddle. The systems that have been adopted were adopted largely because they were simple for the Treasury, at the expense of environmental effectiveness and administrative cost.
	Worse still, there is no clear medium-term strategy. As the Environmental Audit Committee points out, a rush of enthusiasm in 1997 has become, as far as anyone can tell, almost no enthusiasm and only a bit of spin doctoring in 2001-02, yet a medium-term strategy and a clear vision of the Government's direction are crucial if the policies are to be truly effective. Environmental taxation policy is all about changing people's decisions—above all, decisions on capital investment. If the householder deciding whether to invest in a low-energy hot water and central heating system or the business making major capital investment decisions cannot see where the policy is going, and if the Treasury gives no clear plan showing where environmental taxes are going, not only can we in Parliament assume that reforms are unlikely to happen, but, more important, people outside will assume either that they will not happen, or that they are so unpredictable that there is no point in making investments in preparation. A greener Treasury would be more open, because being more open is all about being more effective.
	One reason why the Government are so unwilling to develop their environmental tax proposals is that they, like their Conservative predecessors, have been stung by complaints from the public about some of their major environmental tax initiatives—the road fuel protests under the current Government, and the campaign against VAT on fuel under the last Government. The public had a point in both those instances, because the Government, under the guise of environmental taxation, were raising the tax burden. My party and I have consistently argued, and we have consistently set out policies showing how it can be done, that the argument for environmental taxation will be won only when people see it as a process of reform of the tax system so that "bads" rather than "goods" are taxed, not as a means by which more tax is taken from people behind their back while claiming that it is all in the cause of good environmentalism.
	The overall tax burden is not the issue: it is how we tax, not how much we tax. When the Government confuse the two, it inevitably causes the cynicism highlighted in the University of Surrey's recent report on public attitudes to environmental taxation in the UK, which said that people believe that such taxation is not about the environment, but all about stealth taxes, so they naturally oppose it.

Alan Simpson: I begin with three comments of praise. First, I praise and thank the Select Committee on Environmental Audit for its report and the context in which it set the report. It is important that the Committee acts as a conscience and a critic of where we as a Government have got to, and sets out ways in which we can get to where we want to be. The whole House should thank the Committee, especially for the way in which it has set out the carrots and sticks involved in the process of reaching our goals.
	Secondly, I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for the statement she made prior to this debate on the UK's commitment to signing the Kyoto treaty. She set out with firm commitment the Government's intention to deliver on the reduction of carbon emissions in our society and to change to an economy that gives people a serious prospect of surviving through the century. I do not use the latter phrase lightly.
	Thirdly, perhaps unusually, I thank the Prime Minister. In an important speech made a year ago, he pledged to create a low-carbon, low-waste economy in Britain and to green the agriculture sector and the common agricultural policy. Such statements are welcome, but they will not be realised unless they fit into a comprehensive green fiscal strategy, which should be put in place quickly. The question of how to put such a strategy in place quickly focuses our attention on the coming Budget, and it is right that we examine that.
	From the report and our many debates in the Chamber emerge four principles around which environmental taxation should be structured and four types of measurable outcome that the House and the Government must take seriously. Taking the principles first, it is right to say that if environmental taxation is to command public support, it has to be clear and honest. Secondly, it must be based on a process that rewards the virtuous while penalising the villainous. There must be a sense of environmental justice in our policies.
	Thirdly, there must be a direct connection between environmental taxation and environmental gain. The public will not object to environmental taxation if they can see that the payback directly enhances the quality of life that they, their children and their communities enjoy. Only when the money dissipates in the mist and nothing about the quality of their local environment changes do they begin to be deeply and legitimately sceptical about the purposes of that taxation.

John McDonnell: Has my hon. Friend heard that this week the Republic of Ireland introduced a 15 per cent. levy on plastic bags, of which each person in that country gets 325 a year? The levy will bring in £120 million to use for promoting green issues and environmental projects. Should we introduce that sort of thing in this country?

Alan Simpson: We certainly should. I had not heard of that initiative, which I welcome, although I was aware of a similar one introduced in Greece not only to change the culture in Greek society as a whole, but to target specifically and encourage the re-use of shopping bags by the large number of people who visit Greece as tourists, whose lasting legacy appears to be the polythene bags they leave behind. We should consider such measures as practical applications of the principles I am outlining.
	The fourth principle is perhaps the most contentious. We need to be unafraid of saying that if we are to deliver a sustainable low-carbon economy, we have to change the nature of market rules so that markets favour the sustainable rather than the polluting. The practical application of that principle will probably be the most contentious area that any Government have to tackle.
	Where does that lead us? On the principle of clarity, and in terms of the specifics that I hope the Chancellor will consider in his contemplation of the coming Budget, the House and the country understand that we should adopt a clear position on the case for a pesticides tax and a fertiliser tax.
	I hope that the Chancellor will also consider aviation fuel and the enormous damage that it does through ozone pollution and depletion. It is a mechanism through which suppliers can externalise pollution. The stripping of productive processes out of the United Kingdom to locate them in another country with lower environmental standards is not a global environmental gain. The connectedness of pollution issues means that we cannot consider in isolation what happens in one country. Rules must be set that apply across an international agenda.
	On domestic initiatives, I welcome the Government's introduction of the energy efficiency contribution that is required of the energy supply industry to meet energy efficiency initiatives in domestic energy consumption and changes in the technology for environmental sustainability in the industry.
	I also praise in advance the support that I am confident will be forthcoming from the Cabinet for the private Member's Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner), the Home Energy Conservation Bill. I know that it has slight financial implications, but in budgetary terms they are little more than the cost of a can of paint, and it would be tragic if the Government missed the opportunity of making changes that would be of enormous benefit to the fuel-poor and to those who are forced to be the most polluting energy consumers.
	In terms of rewards and gains, I shall suggest a number of measures that I hope the Chancellor will consider. To promote energy efficiency in the home, we could make considerable mileage from offering rebates on stamp duty for properties that met high energy efficiency standards. That will become more straightforward when we introduce seller's packs that make available surveys of all homes, but we could it introduce before then.
	An energy survey of a home would cost about £150. Even on the cheapest property that would be affected by stamp duty—one that cost £60,000—that would offer a potential saving of about £450, which could be used towards improvements in energy efficiency. Once in place, the measure could be widened to encourage households to undertake other improvements such as the recycling of water and the use of low-impact materials. The rebate is the sort of carrot that we ought to have in mind when we discuss environmental gain.
	We should introduce flexibility for local authorities to vary council tax on properties that are already energy efficient or which we want to induce to become energy efficient. That would have the advantage of extending the payback period for improvements, reducing the cost to those undertaking the improvements, and saving money on their fuel bills and council tax. Large numbers of households around the country would welcome such a measure.
	We could extend the measure to the business community by allowing variation in business rate rebates which would allow cheaper rates for businesses that employ local people, cut their traffic impact and implement green transport schemes for workers and energy efficient premises. My authority in Nottingham is beginning to move in that direction by discussing the introduction of a company car parking levy. Exactly such rebates are being offered to companies that sign up to local green transport schemes.
	All these proposals involve hypothecation and the identification of a payback where the return of taxation to virtuous ends binds people in as net gainers from the process. That could be extended to arrangements for recycling in every home. I know that the landfill tax is contentious, but if householders saw its proceeds manifesting themselves in the setting-up costs of recycling schemes, it would allow them to make choices about being environmentally virtuous. Virtue will strongly influence where public pressure takes us in the years ahead.
	We must allow the public to make important ethical choices that are also environmental choices. We must allow companies tax breaks to deliver the next generation of renewable energy technologies. We should examine ways of offering similar tax breaks to farmers and households for applying renewable technologies and using them in the daily process of their work and lives.
	We should consider how regulation can offer consumers the choice that they want. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) made a powerful case for liquefied petroleum gas—LPG. It is a wonderful example. About a year ago, I was fortunate to be allowed to test drive an LPG vehicle for a week. It was an enjoyable experience, with one exception: I went into a state of panic when the fuel started to run low and I had to work out where to fill the thing up. I remember real anxiety and pulling into petrol stations to ask where I could get LPG. The attendants would scratch their heads. I even stopped the police to ask them. They said that they knew of a place in Southampton—I was going south—and suggested that I go into the centre of Southampton and ask there.
	We must contrast that with the experience in France where, by regulation, the terms of franchises for petrol stations were changed. It is an obligation that one out of every six pumps must offer an alternative fuel, such as LPG or biodiesel. There is an important and legitimate argument to be had about which alternative fuel, but the key fact is that when one pulls into a forecourt, one knows that one can make an ethical choice. One is not offered the Hobson's choice of the polluting technologies that we are seeking to move away from. The introduction of alternative fuels makes it possible for motorists to fill up virtuously. I am certain that huge numbers—even greater than those cited by my hon. Friend—would make that change if they could go about their daily lives without panic or confusion.

Simon Thomas: If the hon. Gentleman repeated the experience of trying to find LPG in rural mid-Wales, he would run out of fuel long before finding the right filling station. LPG is an important option, but does he agree that the potential offered by biodiesel—because the vegetable oil could be produced in this country and the vast majority of diesel cars on the road could easily be adapted to biodiesel without retro-fitting—puts an onus on the Government to enhance the tax incentive for it?

Alan Simpson: I accept that. I was giving an example of the Government's responsibility to make choice available to consumers.
	Without discussing in detail the Home Energy Conservation Bill, we could make a regulatory change that would allow the public to act virtuously if we signed up to the commitments that require the licensing of houses in multiple occupation and the raising or setting of minimum housing standards. Those are not tax issues, but requirement issues, in much the same way as the Clean Air Act 1956.
	My final and probably most contentious point relates to markets. I shall make two points. First, there are huge environmental gains to be made by changing our perception of food markets. Some 60 per cent. of the food that this country imports could be grown here. A fantastic report by the campaign group Sustain on EU food markets showed that the largest part of those markets is food swaps. The report was called "Eating Oil", which well describes what is happening. Huge costs, congestion and pollution go into shipping the same goods back and forth from one part of Europe to another. We should consider ways in which the Government can tax that favour the localisation of food markets. Indeed, that would also strengthen the public's demand for shorter and tighter lines of food accountability.
	My final point is the one with which I suspect very few hon. Members will agree. Like a number of my colleagues, I have been in the habit of roundly denouncing President Bush as a right-wing, reactionary, belligerent old warmonger, but in the past couple of days I have been forced to consider whether I need to rethink that view. There may be a case for suggesting that the decision of the President of the United States to impose a levy on steel imports is environmentally right. In most major sectors of the global economy, there are huge product surpluses. We must ask what the point is of destroying jobs and production processes so that we can offload products made in the most polluting way in parts of the world where people, as well as the environment, are exploited and where the need for infrastructure programmes must come second because the only purchasing capacity is in the north. I wonder whether President Bush has now appointed himself as honorary leader of the globalised resistance movement. If he has, many of us would welcome it and say that in areas of product surpluses, the issue is not about taxation, but about whether we should hypothecate the tariffs that are imposed and whether they should be automatically transferred to ensure that the developing world can use resources for itself in ways that reduce their part of the pollution equation. I realise that that may be some steps ahead of the Environmental Audit Committee report, but I am sure that we are moving in the same direction.
	I do not believe for a moment that by asking for such changes, we will make them happen. However, if we lack the courage to make the case, they will never happen.

John Gummer: I am not sure whether the Prime Minister or President Bush would be more embarrassed by the remarks of the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson).
	I should declare an interest, as I help a number of companies in doing their environmental good on certain issues. On many of those issues, one can hardly mention the environment without referring to those companies. I am also chairman of the not-for-profit organisation, Valpak, which deals with the obligations of companies in the packaging world.
	I am very pleased that we are having this debate and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) on the way in which he introduced it. I also congratulate the Environmental Audit Committee on the way in which it considered the issues. Positive signals are very important. I put it to the Minister as delicately as I can that it would be very good if, on occasion, the Chancellor himself felt able to come to the Chamber on days such as this to hear directly the strong feelings that are held. I make that remark not least because he has a reputation—I am sure that he would like to counter this impression—of not really being personally terribly keen on these matters with the sort of fire that is necessary. If he wished to counter such views, coming here and listening would be a first step. I think that that is the only controversial remark that I shall make, but I hope very much that it will make a point.

Ian Lucas: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

John Gummer: On that point, I think not, but perhaps I shall do so a little later.
	Before we turn to taxation, there is a serious issue in respect of how we encourage people to act in an environmentally friendly way. The first part of that is to make it easier to be good than bad. Man cannot be made good by an Act of Parliament, but one can make it easier to be good. For example, all of us have stayed in hotels where it has taken us some time to find all the switches to turn on the lights. Some are high up and some are low down; they can be anywhere. By the time we have turned them all on and it is time to leave the room, we say to ourselves, "Well, I'm damned if I'm going to turn them off again—after all, I'm paying so much a night that the hotel should be able to pay for the extra electricity." Of course, that is an improper reaction. It would be better if there were a system in which one switch would turn all the lights off, or better still, in which the room card turned the lights on and one had to turn them off as one left the room. Such a system would make it possible to save and do the right thing without causing people any inconvenience.
	I know that some hair-shirted people would prefer us to be inconvenienced. I am not a person of that kind; I am not a puritan either politically or religiously, and I much prefer it to be easier to do good. That means that the Government themselves have a role to play. I think that that role is fourfold and might be called "CERT". "C" stands for counsel. The Government must say what is best in their opinion. Very often, they are good at doing that. The hon. Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) made that point in respect of HFCs, on which the Government have made a perfectly proper statement.
	However, counsel must be followed by example. The hon. Lady rightly said that the Government did not follow their own example. There are far too many examples at this moment of Departments that are directly procuring the very HFC equipment that the Government say is not the answer. If one cannot set an example, one does not have much right to deal either with regulation or taxation. One must say what one believes and then carry it out. Much could be done by public authorities to set the sort of example that we would like to see.
	Regulation is another very important part of what happens. Whether it is based on a voluntary agreement such as that of the car industry to make motor cars more efficient, or whether it requires people to meet standards, depends on the circumstances. However, I believe that the Government could do a great deal more. For example, if we were to hasten the phasing out of that little red eye in the corner that can mean that every sort of electronic equipment is using almost half the electricity that it would use if it were fully switched on and replace it with equipment and technology that are already available, we could save at least two major power stations in this country. A huge difference could be made throughout the world. The European Union provides us with the means of agreeing a much faster phase-out than we have at the moment. If every dishwasher washed with as little water as the best, we would make a huge difference in terms of the energy needed not only to heat the water, but to pump it in the home.
	If we were prepared to look more closely at the planning regulations, we could achieve a great deal. In that regard, I must tell the Minister that one of the scandals of the recent past is the almost total lack of input from DEFRA into the Government's Green Paper on planning. That is the first casualty of a reorganisation of government that I believe to be wrong. There was no proper environmental concern and a number of the proposals in the Green Paper will make it more and not less difficult to ensure that we plan for a more sustainable future. Frankly, I have yet to discern a single occasion on which the Minister for Housing, Planning and Regeneration has spoken about his proposals in a way that suggests that they will advance sustainable development or improve our opportunity to live in an environmentally friendly way.
	I turn now to taxation, on which I think that the Government have not been willing to do as much as the public would be prepared to follow. Unusually, I agree with the Liberal Democrat spokesman, although I find it difficult to take from him any uplifting views on environmental taxation. With the benefit of hindsight we are rewriting our attitude to VAT on fuel, but I remember what actually happened. There was a by-election in which the Liberals wanted to get a vote or two, and suddenly their policy turned around. We should not be surprised about that, for if there is hypocrisy around we know on which Benches it is bound to alight. There is nothing more ready to move than a Liberal faced with a floating vote. As Liberals speak of high-mindedness, the other parties remember where the kick is landed at election time. The dirtiest fighters with the cleanest language—that sums them up. Although I agree with them on this matter, let no one think that I have much time for their normal activities.
	The Liberals are right to say that environmental taxation cannot work unless people can see that the money that it raises does not increase total taxation and is used directly for environmental purposes. Thus hypothecation—the horrid word that I hope that the Minister is brave enough to use in the Treasury—becomes central to the success of environmental taxation.
	When my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) introduced the landfill tax—I was part and parcel of that battle—his biggest argument was with the Treasury, which saw it as that dangerous thing: using taxation specifically. We should increase the tax on landfill and recycle all that is raised through Entrust, not pinch the whole lot for the Treasury, as happened last time—a disgraceful example of non-environmental taxation that was never explained by Treasury Ministers.
	We must change the wholly unacceptable way in which taxation works in relation to car commuters and public transport commuters. That cannot generally be left to local authorities, because where city centres are in competition—for example, in Nottingham, Derby and Leicester—nothing will be done, although some kind of local taxation may be organised in areas where there is no competition. It should be a taxable perk to have a car-parking space and a non-taxable perk to be helped to use public transport. I see no reason why that change cannot be made, and I am sorry that the Government have not yet done so.
	The climate change levy was, from the beginning, seen for what it was. For many months, we were given only the figure for how much the Chancellor would raise from it, not the figure for how many tonnes of carbon it would cut. That is because it was a taxation move that emanated from the Treasury, not from the Department responsible for the environment.

Paul Boateng: indicated dissent

John Gummer: The Minister may shake his head, but it is a matter of fact. The measure was proposed by the Treasury and comments were canvassed from the Department responsible for the environment. It is not surprising that the Treasury announced how much it would raise before anyone knew how many tonnes of carbon it would cut. Nor is it surprising that the changes that took place were intended not to improve the environmental outcome, but to buy the odd vote or two from people who thought that they were being over-pressed by the climate change levy. We have ended up with a huge operation that will do little good and was aimed largely at trying to do something on the margin for coal producers.
	The truth is that the climate change levy will not contribute anything like enough to reducing emissions, but it will make us less competitive in many markets. That cannot be a good thing. I suggest to the Minister that it is unfair to put people like me in the position of having to be antagonistic towards a levy that I would instinctively support. It is called the climate change levy, so the Government should ensure that it is an environmental tax, not twist the words and make it difficult for us to support it.
	Similarly, the aggregates tax will not deliver even as much as the industry offered in advance of it. I shall not say too much about that, as I do quite a bit of work with the industry. The Government have not proved the case for the tax. They have not explained how they will ensure that it is not translated into longer journeys by lorries carrying reconstituted material. They have not explained why so little of it will be used directly in the sustainability fund, nor what the sustainability fund will do. They did not even explain, before the tax was introduced, what it would do and how it would do it. That is not good for the environment because it does not look competent. Environmentalists must look competent because we are always being accused of not being so. The Government should at least have ensured that the tax was introduced comprehensibly and comprehensively.
	HFCs and combined heat and power are very different things but they both suffer from the same problem—namely, that the Government have not made it easier for people to move from dangerous ozone-depleting refrigerants to forms of refrigeration and air conditioning that do not lead to global warming. We should be able to move from CFCs to benign alternatives. I try to encourage people to do that, for the good reason that I believe that it is right, and so should the Government. On CHP, the Government were warned for months about what their legislation and regulations were doing to the industry, yet they did nothing.
	How can we achieve our ends? We can do so by using the market to which the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) rather cack-handedly referred. That market is a powerful mechanism; all we need to do is to give it the fourth dimension of time. If we make it recognise what it does over time and put a price on that we will be able to make it a powerful driver of environmental change. We can do that because we are part of the European Union. If we were in a market on our own we would not be powerful enough to make those changes: the competitive position would make it impossible. But because we are part of the largest trading community in the world, we have the means not only to change market conditions for this nation and for our colleagues in the EU, but to affect the global scene by driving those changes in the United States and beyond. In environmental terms, the EU gives us a large enough base not only to change ourselves without competitive disadvantage, but to change the world through others having to come to terms with the EU's environmental demands.
	Not for the first time, I remind the House of the centrality of the European Union in ensuring that we have sensible environmental policies. The Chancellor can act effectively on taxation and regulation only if we are properly linked to the common decisions of the EU, which alone makes it possible for us to reclaim sovereignty over our environment. That is why the European Union is so crucial and why, without it, we lose sovereignty.

Colin Challen: I want to focus on an issue that is affecting my constituency particularly badly, and which I imagine many urban hinterland seats face: the development of greenfield sites for housing. The pre-Budget report states on page 118:
	"A derelict and under-developed physical environment has a detrimental impact on the social and economic fabric of communities. Population movement out of urban areas makes it difficult to sustain good services and leads to pressure for new development in the countryside. If 45 per cent of new homes continue to be built on greenfield land, within 20 years an area the size of Exmoor would be built over and the quality of life in both urban and rural areas would suffer".
	That is absolutely right. I do not know the relative size of Exmoor compared with my constituency, but I know that there is a feeling in Morley and Rothwell that the quality of life is beginning to suffer rather badly, due to the amount of new house building going on.
	The pre-Budget report contains some excellent moves against new housing on greenfield sites to re-balance the demand for regeneration, but there is, as the Environmental Audit Committee says at paragraph 31 of its report, a great concern
	"that the Government has still not addressed the fundamental perverse VAT incentives between greenfield and brownfield development which still exist. The Government has admittedly introduced some concessions in VAT rates for development on polluted brownfield sites, and for the conversion of buildings for residential occupancy. However, it is still the case that new build on greenfield sites is zero VAT rated."
	The Committee, on which I sit, goes on to call for urgent research
	"on the impact of removing the perverse fiscal incentive to build on greenfield sites."
	Urgent is indeed the word.
	There is a massive demand for building land, as evidenced by a report from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, cited in Monday's Yorkshire Post, which claimed that new build must rise by 60 per cent. and stay at that level for the next 14 years. All that house builders want to do is get their hands on as much greenfield land as they possibly can, and cover it with bricks and mortar. Also in Monday's Yorkshire Post, the chief executive of Persimmon Homes, Britain's biggest house building company, said that all the house builders want to do is buy land, build houses and sell them at a profit. I understand that; there is a demand and those companies make the product to fulfil that demand, but they do not get too worked up about greenfield sites. In fact, they even advertise for greenfield sites, with or without planning permission.
	The Treasury's response to the Environmental Audit Committee's question about the perverse VAT incentive was rather bland, and certainly lacked any sense of urgency. That is a great shame because, as more houses go up, a curtain of finality drops on our countryside, which is now at its weakest point of resistance to these estates of identikit houses on the edges of our cities and towns. Everywhere we look, regiments of bland dwellings are crowding along the boundaries of the urban landscape, like some great invading encirclement in a mediaeval siege, seeking to ensure that whatever is left of the unique heritage of our towns and cities is made to conform to the uniform master plan of the chief executive of Persimmon Homes.
	Incentives need to focus much more on how we can reclaim city centres, brownfield sites and old industrial buildings. We are told that, nationally, 760,000 houses are empty on a long-term basis. In Morley, there is a rich architectural heritage, dating from the town's great industrial days, which needs an injection of capital to restore it to modern use. Old buildings need nourishing, and as there is clearly a need for residential buildings, the measures covered in the pre-Budget report for revitalising such buildings need far greater emphasis. As long as it is so much cheaper to build on a nice greenfield site, however, the incentive is not there, and what is achieved in the older urban areas is still far too weak in many of them to achieve a pure market-driven momentum. That is the case in Morley, and I ask the Treasury to give special attention to the recommendation on removing the perverse incentive contained in the Environmental Audit Committee's report.

Mark Francois: I am pleased to be able to contribute to this debate as a member of the Environmental Audit Select Committee, whose report forms the basis for this afternoon's discourse. On a personal level, I am also pleased to be doing so with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), in the Chamber. I fought my first parliamentary seat in Brent, East against Ken Livingstone in 1997, and I have fond memories of participating in a number of borough-wide debates during that general election, including some with the right hon. Gentleman, so it is a pleasure to be here, debating with him again, five years on.
	I would like to concentrate on the role of the Treasury as highlighted in the Committee's report. The Treasury is the Department primarily responsible for taxation policy, including environmental taxation. As such, it bears an important responsibility for the practical effect of such taxation on promoting—or otherwise—the concept of sustainable development. As part of our inquiry, we took evidence from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, as well as from a number of other interested organisations, including the Confederation of British Industry, the Green Alliance, the Institute for Public Policy Research and Friends of the Earth.
	Despite the Government's statement of intent on environmental taxation that accompanied the 1997 Budget, our witnesses expressed some scepticism about the Government's continuing commitment to using environmental taxation as an instrument of environmental policy rather than as a cover for raising additional taxation revenue, for the primary benefit of the Exchequer rather than for specific objectives of promoting sustainable development.
	The Committee reported in paragraph 12 of its conclusions and recommendations:
	"We regret that the Treasury has retreated from a strategic commitment to environmental tax reform, by diluting the language used in the original Statement of Intent. Together with other factors discussed below, it suggests that the Treasury's approach is indeed ad hoc."

Gareth Thomas: I am surprised by that part of the Select Committee's report. Rather than agreeing that the Treasury has withdrawn from a commitment to environmental taxation, I think that it is merely pausing for breath, having been very radical. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a green tax commission, which was supported by the Environmental Audit Committee when I was lucky enough to serve on it, might be the way to provide additional support to the Treasury while it considers what further green tax initiatives are needed?

Mark Francois: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. As I understand it, the Committee is continuing to push the concept of a green tax commission, and it is for the Treasury to decide whether it wishes to take up the suggestion. The hon. Gentleman suggested that there had been a pause; I would say that it has actually been quite a long pause, and leave it at that.
	Another theme that emerged from our inquiry was that if the Government are serious about seeking to derive environmental, as well as purely financial, benefits from so-called environmental taxation, they need to organise themselves accordingly. Specifically, the Treasury needs properly to resource a specialist unit within its ranks to deal with environmental taxation and related sustainable development issues. The Committee made the point that such a unit could also specialise in examining individual departmental sustainable development reports. That subject was touched on earlier and I would like to return to it.
	There is also an important issue relating to access to these reports. Departments were expected to produce reports on their sustainable development strategies as part of their submissions for the Treasury's spending review 2002. Our Committee was particularly vexed by the refusal of the Treasury to make available copies of those departmental reports for subsequent examination by the EAC. We argued in paragraph 20 of our conclusions and recommendations:
	"We expect to receive copies of the sustainable development reports submitted by departments as part of Spending Review 2002, so as to be able to audit them in line with our remit from the House."
	From a sustainable development viewpoint, the reports are obviously of considerable importance, as they lay out the commitment to sustainable development of each individual Department. Taken as a whole, they provide an important illustration of the commitment to sustainable development across government, and are thus key source documents.
	As a compromise, the Committee has suggested that the Treasury could make these reports available at least to the National Audit Office, and allow it to audit those documents and report its results to the Committee, which could take a view on its analysis.
	Access to these reports is an issue not just for us. Yesterday morning, as part of the Committee's inquiry into the forthcoming world summit on sustainable development in Johannesburg, it took evidence from Sir Jonathon Porritt, who is chairman of the Sustainable Development Commission. The SDC was appointed to advise the Prime Minister and the Government on sustainable development issues, including environmental taxation. In his evidence to the Committee yesterday, Sir Jonathon also raised the matter of access to these departmental reports, and he supported the Committee's desire to be allowed to examine them. As he has the Prime Minister's ear, Treasury Ministers may like to pay some heed to his opinion.
	I confess that it was principally the Labour party that argued for the establishment of the Environmental Audit Committee, but that gives it an added responsibility to allow the Committee to do its job. I remind the Minister of the Committee's remit:
	"Consider to what extent the programmes and policies of Government Departments and non-departmental public bodies contribute to environmental protection and sustainable development; to audit their performance against such targets as may be set for them by Her Majesty's Ministers; and to report thereon to the House."
	To perform that role effectively, it should have access to departmental plans for sustainable development so that it can examine them. I urge the Treasury to drop its opposition to making that information available to the Committee and to allow us to perform the task for which we were originally constituted by the House.
	I shall conclude my remarks in the hope that other hon. Members on the Committee will be able to speak. I ask the Minister to give serious consideration to what I have said.

Gareth Thomas: I have long thought that our party's future lay partly in strengthening our environmental credo. We should aspire to be a modern, left-of-centre party delivering year-on-year improvements in public services, and if we are to stay committed to the interests of the many and not the few we need to embrace the environmental agenda more rigorously than we have so far. I believe that new, bold steps in environmental taxation would be a positive move in that process.
	I was lucky enough to serve on the Select Committee on Environmental Audit in the last Parliament, and I congratulate its Chair and members on their continued detailed scrutiny of environmental taxation. I apologise to the House, but I have to chair a meeting with the Minister for Industry and Energy to consider how to implement the recommendations of the energy review, so I shall not be able to hear the Financial Secretary's summing up.
	By contrast with the mealy-mouthed attitude of some Opposition Members, the Treasury has been responsible for some significantly radical steps on environmental taxation, either through the climate change levy or the incentives to encourage alternative, cleaner fuels. Those steps are making a significant difference to market expectations and to the interest of business in developing environmentally friendly technologies.
	However, we need to go much further on energy, transport and waste policy. We should be bolder in our use of environmental taxes and the revenues that they generate, and in our advocacy of taxation across national boundaries to help to solve some of our environmental problems. The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) made about the urgency of the challenge to deal with pollution, particularly carbon emissions from aviation, is an important example.
	There is also an urgency about the need for new consideration of environmental taxes, partly because of the concern raised by the recent report of Cambridge Econometrics about the rise in carbon emissions last year and this year. It is concerned that, despite our ambition of a 20 per cent. reduction in carbon emissions by 2010 on 1990 levels, if its analysis is right, on current trends we will achieve only a 6.5 per cent. reduction. That is a reason to consider afresh the case for a green tax commission. Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, Canada and the Netherlands already have such a commission.
	A green tax commission could consider carefully how we encourage and give incentives to households to reduce unnecessary energy usage. The Cambridge Econometrics report shows that, if no further action is taken, on current trends there will be a 19 per cent. increase in CO 2 from households by 2010 on 1990 levels. The cut in energy conservation materials that the Treasury initiated—down from 17.5 per cent. to 5 per cent.—is a useful step in the right direction. The suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South about stamp duty rebates for households with high levels of energy efficiency is an interesting suggestion that such a commission could explore. In the Netherlands, domestic energy is taxed, but there is a tax-free allowance of 800 kilowatt hours per month for all households, so as not to penalise essential energy use. Households in the Netherlands are also required to meet much higher insulation standards.
	I hope that the Financial Secretary will tell the House what further tax incentives the Treasury is considering to encourage the development of renewable energy. There is a huge challenge for us to take forward the recommendations of the recent performance and innovation unit report on energy. It highlighted the fact that, if we are to achieve our 10 per cent. target and the equally realistic target of 20 per cent. energy from renewable sources by 2020, onshore and offshore windfarms will have to be installed and operate at the rate of 1 GW to 2 GW per year in the period 2010 to 2020. Given Britain's current record on renewable energy generation, that is a huge challenge, but it has already been achieved in Germany, Spain and Denmark. Perhaps there is a case for further tax breaks to help to generate new investment in onshore and offshore windfarms, and wave and solar power.
	I want to flag up the specific recommendation of the PIU report, endorsed by the chief scientific adviser, that there is a huge need for further funding for low carbon and energy research. I hope that significant action will be taken in that respect under the comprehensive spending review. In the Netherlands, an interesting scheme, supported by tax breaks, has been established to generate private sector investment through green funds, which are regulated by the central bank. The projects that they fund must be approved by the Dutch Ministry of Environment. I encourage my right hon. Friend to explore those points and the possibility of a green tax commission.
	There has been a huge rise in the level of litter in the past 10 years. Litter is not the sexiest subject that the House must consider, but there is huge potential for the taxation system to help to solve the litter problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) flagged up the plastic bags tax in Ireland, which shows the potential of the taxation system for exploring these issues. Another PIU report is being prepared in that area, and I hope that my right hon. Friend is closely engaged in the consideration of the taxation measures that could help to solve some of our litter problems.
	I look forward to reading my right hon. Friend's comments in Hansard tomorrow.

Simon Thomas: It has been my pleasure and delight to be a member of the Select Committee on Environmental Audit since I came to the House in February 2000. The Committee does a sterling job in holding the Government to account on a wide range of issues. The Environmental Audit Committee's title is a misnomer, as the Committee acts as the House's Select Committee on sustainable development. No other Committee examines the Government's activity in that respect, or holds them to account on those matters.
	Increasingly, the Government are adopting the sustainable approach. It is not always perfect, of course, which is why the EAC's scrutiny and reports are needed. However, the EAC's resources are stretched in accomplishing its task. If the Committee, in its role as sustainable development Committee, is going to be fully able to hold the Government to account on these matters, we need the openness referred to by the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois). In addition, the Committee must have the auditing powers and access to research that it lacks at present.
	The EAC has proposed a Bill on those matters, which has been taken up as a private Member's Bill by the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor). I hope that the Government will consider the Bill's merits, as it would be better if they took the initiative. In that way, occasional accusations that the Government are sliding away from some of their commitment to sustainability can be countermanded.
	As the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) said at the start of the debate, there is more to sustainable development and its promotion by the Government than environmental taxation. Although I shall confine my remarks to the issue of environmental taxation so as to be as brief as possible, I believe that the phrase "environmental taxation" is itself misleading. A better phrase would be "taxation for sustainable development", and it should cover everything that the United Kingdom must try to do.
	The first thing to say is that the Government have retreated from their pretty radical and welcome position on environmental taxation. The June 1997 statement of intent on environmental taxation encompassed many things. It stated:
	"Over time, the Government will aim to reform the tax system"—
	that is, the whole system, not just environmental taxation—
	"to increase incentives to reduce environmental damage. That will shift the burden of tax from 'goods' to 'bads'; encourage innovation in meeting high environmental standards; and deliver a more dynamic economy and a cleaner environment, to the benefit of everyone."
	That final phrase—
	"to the benefit of everyone"—
	is what made me consider the statement to be more about sustainable development. It recognised that the environment, social justice and the economy go hand in hand.
	Unfortunately, the current statement of intent does not recognise that. The 1999 pre-Budget report said merely that the Government would consider using the tax system on a case-by-case basis. That is a real weakening of the Government's intent with regard to promoting sustainable development through the taxation system.
	It was suggested earlier that the Government are merely pausing or taking a breath before moving on to a more radical phase. I do not see where more radical proposals are going to come from, although, of course, I hope that they do appear. The Government are prepared to scatter a few carrots around to encourage and incentivise the "goods", but they seem very wary about using the big stick on the "bads".
	The background to the matter is public reaction, such as the protests that greeted the abolition of the fuel duty escalator. If the Government are to lead on these matters, they must explain them to the public.
	The Government are to be congratulated on what they have done with regard to Kyoto, for example. They have taken an international leadership role on that matter, and the statement earlier today was worthy. However, the Government have not led the domestic agenda in the same way. If they want to be remembered as the Government who instituted sustainable development and incorporated it fully into the fabric of the UK, they must do much more.

David Taylor: The hon. Gentleman mentioned that another hon. Member had said that the Government were drawing breath, but does he agree that they have approached the matter of the aggregates levy like a bull at a gate? The levy is due to be introduced in three weeks, but no detailed regulation covering its implementation and enforcement has been published. Have not the Government been over hasty in some areas of environmental taxation?

Simon Thomas: I agree, and I shall deal with the aggregates levy in a while.
	The energy review that has just been published recommends that the Government should create economic instruments to bring home the cost of carbon emissions. There is therefore another incentive to take such matters further.
	The Government must address four principles when they consider environmental taxation. Although not all the principles must always be observed in environmental taxation, accusations that such taxation is a stealth tax can be circumvented if one or more of them are used to underpin the tax. Moreover, the Government must make it clear that the principles are used to underpin the tax. They could do that by means of an independent green tax commission, which the EAC has proposed in the past. I hope that such a commission will be established, but for the moment I shall concentrate on the four principles.
	The first is the polluter pays principle. It is well known and widely understood, but it implies ring fencing and hypothecation. The Treasury, under all Governments, has been reluctant to consider that in the past, but increasingly it is seen as a valuable way to put the principle into effect.
	The second principle is that the tax burden should be switched away from income and employment, and on to the consumption of resources. That is very important. The hon. Member for Orpington said that sustainable development meant treating the world as though we intended to stay. That is by far the most concise definition that I have heard, but we must switch the tax burden in the way that I described if we are to make that a reality. The difficulty is that we must also bear in mind a commitment to social justice in the matter—after all, the poor should consume in the same way as the rich. The redistribution of resources requires social justice in the tax system.
	The third principle is the internalising principle—that the cost of producing goods should reflect real costs rather than actual costs. In other words, the external costs of production should be present in the final price of goods. The obvious example of an UK industry in which that does not happen is nuclear energy, but adherence to the principle can be difficult. For example, in a globalised market, how do we work out external costs? What are the external costs of what Bush has done with steel in the US? Does fuel consumption in this country have external costs in respect of global warming, climate change or the floods in Mozambique? The principle has its difficulties, but I believe that it must be taken into account when any environmental taxation is considered.
	The fourth principle is that environmental taxation can be used as a practical policy tool in achieving certain objectives. In other words, the theoretical cost is sometimes less important than whether we use taxation to incentivise a "good" or penalise a "bad". The obvious measure to which the fourth principle applies is the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions. That may entail imposing for a time a certain amount of penalising taxation, as we will be trying to change people's behaviour.
	Taxation in such circumstances does not always work, as the Government's change of mind on fuel duties shows. When the fuel duty escalator was introduced in the 1993 Budget, the then Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), said that it was also about achieving a cut in carbon emissions. However, one of the problems for the public was that there was no evidence that the levy would work in that way. Subsequent Governments have produced very little evidence in support of the contention.
	More to the point, when the fuel duty escalator was frozen in the 2000 Budget, no evidence was produced about how that would affect traffic congestion, carbon dioxide emissions, or anything else. The Government were very remiss—and very ungreen, if I can put it that way—in not producing that evidence, and they were criticised for that failure by a short, sharp report from the EAC.
	Issues relating to, for instance, fuel taxation demonstrate the potential complexity and difficulty of environmental taxation. In fact, the one thing that did stop carbon dioxide emissions from transport and reduce traffic congestion by—I think—5 per cent. was the fuel duty protest. That week in September achieved something that taxation has not been able to achieve.
	The problem with transport costs is that the point at which taxation really bites and starts to reduce road transport is the point at which, by definition, it becomes unacceptable to the public. There must be alternative incentives, perhaps involving road pricing or public transport.
	We must also ensure equality of choice throughout the country. At present, environmental taxes such as fuel taxes penalise the poorest rather than the richest. The hon. Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) gave a good example relating to liquefied petroleum gas. There is not a choice in rural areas such as mine. There are only 93 fuel stations in Wales providing LPG, which means that it would be difficult to travel around Wales using LPG alone. I think that there are only five such stations in my county.
	The hon. Lady said that 50,000 vehicles were running on LPG. As she may well know, the official registered figure is 26,694. Until the infrastructure is in place, whether for LPG or for biodiesel, people will not make the choice. Sometimes an incentive is needed. The power shift programme, which helps people to convert their vehicles, applies only to new vehicles. The vast majority of my constituents live in rural areas and drive older vehicles.
	Government policy in this respect has not been a complete failure, as is demonstrated in the Environmental Audit Committee report. I was disappointed, however, that the idea of a pesticide tax had been shelved. I feel that that should be looked at again, and that more research should be conducted into how voluntary regulation is working.
	Landfill tax presents a clear example of our failure. It should be given a much higher priority. I think it was the Environmental Audit Committee that suggested a rate of £25 per tonne. I am particularly worried about the fact that the tax is still only £2 a tonne for inert wastes. There is a mismatch between the landfill tax and the aggregates tax, which, we have been told, is intended to reduce primary extraction and encourage the use of secondary materials. Given a tax of only £2 a tonne on inert wastes, I do not see how the landfill tax can work hand in hand with the aggregates levy.
	As the hon. Member for North–West Leicestershire (David Taylor) said earlier, some of us were in the House within a month of the implementation of the aggregates levy. Many of us who claim to be environmentalists have found ourselves wrestling with the question of how we can support the levy in its present form. My particular worry is that the way it is currently being implemented may lead to the closure of the smaller quarries. For instance, a quarry in Ystradmeurig in my constituency supplies the road stone for my constituency and neighbouring constituencies. If it closed, there would surely be more road transport because of the need to transport the material, and more carbon dioxide emissions.

John Gummer: Is it not also true that the sheer business of getting out stone that is necessary leaves behind a good deal of waste that will be classified as virgin material and will therefore cause real defacement and trouble in such beautiful parts of the countryside as the hon. Gentleman's constituency?

Simon Thomas: That may well be so. I am given to understand that the maximum amount of hard waste that could be recycled would be only 1 or 2 per cent. of virgin aggregates.
	Imports also give rise to concern. Although imported aggregates will be taxed, by-products will not, although they are taxed in this country. I fear that the market will be flooded by imports, which will need to be transported for long distances.

Roy Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the most disastrous impact of the aggregates levy will be experienced in Northern Ireland? It will necessitate the relocation of jobs in the Irish Republic, where there are nearly 300 miles of border and 400 crossing points. We know of the problems with tobacco and oil smuggling; now there must be a new incentive for dodging tax on aggregates. Surely the Government should conduct research into all the implications, including the human hardship that would be caused, and—even at this late stage—defer the imposition of the tax on 1 April until further consideration has been given. I hope that would also avoid the embarrassment that may result—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is wandering into a speech rather than making an intervention.

Roy Beggs: I understand that there is to be a judicial review.

Simon Thomas: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comprehensive intervention. I too understand that a judicial review is to be initiated soon. I also understand that the aggregates tax is to be phased in Northern Ireland. The issues have not been resolved, however, and they need to be resolved if there is only a month to go.

David Taylor: Is it not the case that the proposed level of the tax, £1.60 per tonne, is three to four times the profit margin of typical companies? That, moreover, is based on very poor-quality research by an obscure company that has now gone into liquidation. It consulted only a few people, and only one in 10 said they would be willing to pay anything towards the so-called closure of their local quarries. Should the Government not rethink the tax?

Simon Thomas: I agree that a research programme that merely asks how much people would be prepared to pay for the closure of a local quarry is, in fact, no research programme. That underlines the need for a genuinely independent environmental tax—green tax—commission to perform such research and inform Members. That would enable us to hold the Government to account.
	The report also suggests the introduction of an incinerator tax. That has prompted great interest in Wales, where a couple of incinerators are proposed—one in Crumlin Bowers and one in the Wrexham area. The proposal has given the Committee a higher profile in the Welsh media, but I think it should be considered carefully.
	As was mentioned earlier, we recently returned from Germany, where I noted that incineration was counted as a renewable in the energy programme. I do not think we want to consider it as such in this country, and I hope the Government will resist the idea.
	I think we may see some innovative schemes. I am certainly interested in what Ireland has just done about carrier bags. Finding them 15 miles away from the nearest supermarket, on top of a mountain, is not a very pleasurable experience when one is taking a walk. It is obvious that something must be done about packaging. I also think that the points made about an aviation tax are central. It was excluded from the Kyoto protocol, deliberately. The arrangement dates back to, I think, the Copenhagen principles. It is a very old agreement, and it needs to be reviewed. The Government have an opportunity to take the lead.
	We also need to increase the opportunity for biodiesel to be used in this country. A 20p rebate has been announced, but according to information I have received from Cargill plc a further reduction of about 15p is needed,
	"giving an overall rate of 10p per litre",
	which
	"would be sufficient to ensure . . . a commercially viable . . . industry".
	That is the important thing. We should not use taxation just to subsidise things; we should use it to help the market and to produce a commercially viable situation.
	The Government have taken some major steps, especially in their first year. We have yet to see them do so in their second term. The problem is that some of their steps forward have been followed up by a lack of co-ordination, or a lack of joined-up government, and certainly by a lack of momentum. 4.19 pm

Mark Lazarowicz: I join in the chorus of congratulation to members of the Environmental Audit Committee on producing an excellent report. It is hard-hitting, but, with one slight qualification, it hits the right targets, and I sincerely hope that its recommendations will be reflected in practical policy outcomes sooner rather than later. I look forward to hearing what my right hon. Friend the Minister has to say about the recommendations.
	In a necessarily brief contribution to the debate, I want to highlight three areas in which the need for a more comprehensive use of environmental taxation measures is particularly important, the first of which is waste. I draw the attention of the Minister and the House to early-day motion 851, on sustainable waste strategy, which contains ideas developed by the Socialist Environment and Resources Association and Friends of the Earth. It has the support of some 60 Members across the political parties, and I commend it to Treasury Ministers. I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments on it.
	Several hon. Members have referred to the second issue that I want to comment on: the lack of a tax on aviation fuel, which must be addressed and cannot be ignored for ever. Air traffic is a major and fast-growing source of noise and pollution. It is true that improvements in technology have reduced noise, but that has been outstripped by the great increase in the number of flights. If the sector grows unchecked, there will be consequences not only for atmospheric pollution but for noise pollution, affecting those unfortunate enough to live close to increasingly busy airports.
	Even 10 years ago, emissions from international aviation accounted for about 3.5 per cent. of man-made global warming. According to the current UK trend, aviation is the fastest-growing area of carbon dioxide emission in this country. As has been pointed out, aviation fuel is exempted from taxation by international agreement. I urge the Government to take international steps—I do not suggest that the problem can be dealt with solely at a UK level—to tackle pollution from aircraft fuel emissions, and the consequences of noise pollution.
	I suggested that we should deal with air travel pollution by taxing aviation fuel, but perhaps that is not the right way to control the growth of air travel. The Institute for Public Policy Research, which is held in high regard by the Treasury, made several recommendations on emissions trading in respect of aviation fuel that are worthy of consideration. It also made some interesting recommendations on regional airports and the need to control air travel in parts of the country where growth is particularly heavy. Expanding airports in the south to provide extra capacity for short-haul air travel is surely the wrong strategy. If we invest in high-speed rail, we could easily achieve a real transfer from air travel to rail travel for journeys of 400 miles or less. That is another example of the way in which environmental policy and transport policy are closely interlinked.

David Taylor: Does my hon. Friend anticipate as keenly as I do a more coherent and well-directed environmental framework within which regional airports can operate, once the Government's 30-year aviation strategy is eventually announced? It is important that regional airports do not expand to take the surplus decanted from London airports without an environmental framework in place to protect their local populations.

Mark Lazarowicz: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. It is ironic that much of the increase in air traffic in the UK—at regional and international airports—could be met by a transfer to rail, rather than by simply ratcheting up the increase in domestic air travel.
	The third and final issue that I want to address is the political hot potato of fuel duty on vehicles, which has given rise to much political opportunism over the years. Although I am in no sense criticising the Environmental Audit Committee, I note with interest that, despite its otherwise bold recommendations, this is one area in which it was somewhat coy. It said that the Government must
	"consider all options for containing the growth of road traffic",
	without exploring in much detail the available options. I know that the Committee had already discussed the matter, but I hope that it will return to it in due course.
	There are important issues associated with tax on vehicle fuel that cannot be ignored or dumped. Road transport produces one quarter of all carbon dioxide emissions in this country. Making motoring more expensive in real terms must be one of the methods used to bring down that pollution. Other methods—persuading motorists to use lower emission fuel, and investing in alternative forms of transport—are also important, but if we are really to tackle the problem we must use all those methods, including a rise in real terms of vehicle fuel taxation.
	After all, the likelihood is that the cost of motoring will fall in real terms in the next 10 years, for a number of reasons. In the UK in particular, car prices are likely to fall in real terms. Perversely, if fuel duty stays the same as fuel efficiency increases, motorists will be encouraged to use their cars more, instead of switching to public transport, thus bringing no benefit to atmospheric pollution. Traffic congestion would also increase.
	Likely falls in the cost of motoring contrast with the cost of bus and rail travel, which, according to current trends, is at best likely to remain static, and may increase in real terms. Set against the cost of public transport, a reduction in the cost of private motoring will do nothing to encourage people to use public transport, but cause big problems in the delivery of the Government's 10-year transport plan.
	I realise that these issues are difficult to discuss in the climate since the fuel protest, but a steady, real-terms increase in fuel duty is necessary to keep the cost of motoring stable, encourage more people off the roads and on to bus and rail, and create a level playing field. Many environmental organisations, such as Friends of the Earth, have made detailed and comprehensive proposals about vehicle fuel taxation, and I urge the Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take account of them in the forthcoming Budget proposals.
	The Government have made a very good start by using environmental taxation as an important weapon in their armoury to promote environmental sustainability in this country. As we have discovered in today's debate, it is easy in theory to call for environmental taxation measures, but specific measures often give rise to considerable opposition on both sides of the House, because of their possible impact on individual constituencies. I praise the Government for so far resisting calls to draw back from environmental taxation measures, and I urge them to be consistent by taking forward that policy and building on the Environmental Audit Committee's excellent proposals.

Sue Doughty: I will be brief as I know that time is running short. As a member of the Environmental Audit Committee, I pay tribute to our Chairman, who drove us hard but with a lot of kindness to get us where we are today, and to the people who support the Committee, who did a tremendous amount of work.
	I was surprised by some of the comments about changing policies on tax because the Select Committee report says that we need to keep reviewing what works and what does not. That is a strong theme throughout the report. The Government started very well in 1997, and we were all pleased to see the work to set up an environmental taxation regime. We look forward to further developments. It would be easy to be rude about the Government, but their heart is in the right place; they have simply slowed down a little too much for comfort.
	We need to use the opportunities presented to us in the Treasury approach to see what changes can be made. As other hon. Members have said, the Treasury needs an internal unit for sustainable development to look at not only fiscal development but the outcomes and effects of fiscal work. We need research and promotion of environmental tax policies. We need resource productivity indicators. I saw examples of those in Germany last week; we need them here so that we can find out whether we are on the right track.
	We need to monitor the adequacy of environmental appraisal in new policy proposals and the impact of existing environmental tax policies. It is important that we co-ordinate the work of other Departments in which the Treasury is taking a lead, and we must ensure that Departments submit their sustainable development reports. We need to consider exciting changes. We have been talking about biofuels, which are wonderful. Our rural industries are ailing, and biofuels provide opportunities for rural regeneration.
	We are concerned about home energy conservation. We do not seem to be doing enough for the fuel-poor, and we should do more to encourage the fuel-rich to use devices such as energy-saving light bulbs. Could we not give tax breaks on such items to encourage people who leave their lights on all day to do so much more cheaply? It is not the fuel-poor but the fuel-rich who burn excess fuel, and we are doing nothing to encourage them to use energy much more efficiently. Home energy conservation measures target the fuel-poor, but the fuel-rich are important if we are to achieve sustainability.
	There is much more to be done, and I hope that the Budget includes major increases in landfill and incineration taxes. Many Members on both sides of the House, including the Deputy Prime Minister, who is not present, and me, have deep concerns about sustainable waste management. We look to the Treasury to support us in encouraging councils to take a new approach to achieving sustainable development.

Bruce George: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have been sitting here for 20 minutes enthralled by this truly important subject. As Chairman of the Defence Committee, I point out that we have an equally important subject, terrorism, to discuss. I know that this is not strictly within your terms of reference, but may I, through you, implore my colleagues to take note that, if equity is to be taken into account, this debate should terminate at 4.40 pm, after which my colleagues and I will become a little irritated. I plead with you to invite our colleagues to finish the debate no later than that.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is correct: that is not a point for the Chair.

Joan Walley: I am sure that everyone will be relieved to hear that I will be as brief as possible.
	Whatever has been said about the urgency with which we need to proceed to the next debate, the whole point of the Environmental Audit Committee is to talk about putting environmental issues at the heart of Government. We want not only annual reports to Parliament but Ministers in all Departments considering the detail of the Committee's work. Those proposals have been on our agenda for a long time. We want to make sure that Ministers leave Parliament today ready to implement our recommendations.
	We have had a thorough debate, and it falls to me, as vice-Chairman of the Committee, to impress on the Minister the urgency with which he should address the points that have been made. Our Committee is cross-cutting, and in many areas of policy the Government have, thankfully, recognised the importance of cross-cutting reviews and working parties. It is essential that environmental issues are at the heart of what the Treasury does. That means that we will get the right forms of environmental taxation. It falls to the Minister to tell us how the Treasury will implement our recommendations.
	Many points have been made. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) has introduced a private Member's Bill that, if successful, would mean that the Committee had resources on the scale that is available to the Public Accounts Committee. The proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) are even ahead of those of the Environmental Audit Committee. The hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) said that the sustainable development reports that are available to the Treasury need to be made fully transparent and they must be available to Parliament through the Select Committee. Will the Minister tell us what he is going to do about that?
	We are still mystified about what happened to the pesticides tax. If ever there was a case of wanting to put the polluter pays principle at the heart of policy, the pesticides tax is it. I urge the Minister to look at that again. We have not had a satisfactory response, and we need to keep a close watch on the arrangements whereby the water companies have to pay for the clean-up mechanism.
	These issues are at the same time both local and global. I urge the Minister to consider urban development and the nonsensical situation of having zero-rated VAT on greenfield site development. We have heard about the recycling of brownfield sites—what happened to that proposal? [Interruption.] Whatever conversation he may be having at the moment, will the Minister, when he winds up the debate, tell the House why the Government have not even carried out the research that would enable us to make proposals to encourage investment in the recycled brownfield sites that are so badly needed? I want to congratulate the Government on what they have done, but will the Minister tell us, even if he cannot provide the information to Parliament this afternoon, how we can deal with state aid rules and how we can find money to match the concessions that have been made on environmental issues?
	We heard much about the climate change levy. I say to the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) that the ceramics industry has shown that the levy can work and make a real difference. Today the Government have ratified the Kyoto protocol, and we can now proceed with emissions trading.
	Many issues have been raised, and there is no time to deal with them now. The recommendation for a green tax commission has been before the Government for five years. Does the Minister understand that if we are to avoid another conflict over fuel, we need a green tax commission to raise public awareness and to encourage as many people to engage in the environmental debate as took part in the "Pop Idol" debate on television a short time ago?
	I hope that we can have more debates on environmental issues because many hon. Members, including those who are not on the Select Committee, have a great interest in the subject. It is now incumbent on Parliament to see how more time can be made available, so that the Government can respond without undue haste and the threat of the clock ticking away, as it is this afternoon.

David Lidington: I congratulate all members of the Environmental Audit Select Committee and, in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) on their report, which is an important and wide-ranging piece of work. I note that today my hon. Friend is celebrating his birthday. He will regard the opportunity of this debate as the icing on his cake.
	The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) and other hon. Members from all sides pointed out that the debate and the report cut across Whitehall departmental boundaries. My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) in particular noted that it brings us into debate about European and international policy, not just policy that is the sole responsibility of those of us who legislate at Westminster. Emissions trading, for example, is covered by a British scheme, a European scheme and, at some stage in the not too distant future, a global scheme. We shall have to make all three work and mutually compatible.
	I am aware of the point made by the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), so I will concentrate on a few key aspects of the report rather than do justice to its entire contents. It is a trenchant report and I hope that the Minister will take seriously the criticisms made by a Committee that spans the party membership of the House. The Committee talks of a desperate need for greater clarity in the presentation of figures to do with environmental measures; and of the Treasury
	"failing to provide adequate leadership and coordination across central Government."
	The report calls for much greater use of specialist expertise, both within the Treasury and Whitehall more generally to track the practical effectiveness of environmental measures, including environmental taxes once they have been legislated for.
	I want to focus in particular on the aggregates levy and the climate change levy. As the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor) pointed out, the aggregates levy already appears to be having a beneficial effect on the prospects for the use of china clay waste in Cornwall. I have read that the same is true of slate quarry waste from parts of Wales. But it is undoubtedly true also that there are serious worries in other parts of the quarrying and aggregates industry about the impact of the levy on its ability to compete, particularly with overseas rivals. The point was made strongly by the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) when he drew our attention to the particular difficulties of the Province. I read, for example, that in Scotland a £20 million project to increase trade at Peterhead bay harbour is under threat because the impact of the aggregates levy will be to impose an additional £1.5 million on the cost of that project, putting 500 actual or prospective jobs in that hard-pressed area at risk.
	Whatever the arguments about the principle of having an aggregates levy or the shape which the Government have chosen for that tax, there can be no excuse for the botched way in which the Government are seeking to introduce it. As the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) pointed out in an intervention, we are now about three weeks away from the date when the levy comes into force and firms start having to pay it, yet businesses do not have available the detailed regulations which will govern the implementation of that new tax. Worse still, the Government announced on 28 November last year that they were going to amend the Finance Act 2001 on which the aggregates levy is based.
	The Government are proposing no fewer than 10 changes, which presumably will have to be legislated for in this year's Finance Bill. We are unlikely to know its contents before May. I imagine that those changes will be imposed retrospectively. It is hugely unfair on businesses to leave them trying to cope in this state of limbo. The Government, as I hope the Financial Secretary will have the grace to concede, have breached seriously their guidelines for giving businesses a minimum of 12 weeks between the publication of new regulations with which they are expected to comply and the date at which those regulations come into force. I do not believe that there is an adequate excuse for treating businesses in that way.
	As my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal pointed out, when one looks at what the climate change levy is likely to deliver in terms of reduced carbon emissions, it is small beer in terms of what the country has signed up to under Kyoto and other international agreements. It will bear heavily on particular sectors of industry. In practice it will transfer money away from manufacturing at a time when manufacturing is in recession and away from small service businesses employing part-time or low-paid workers, to service businesses employing a lot of people. Banks, for example, will probably benefit from the way in which the Government have chosen to introduce the levy.
	The Financial Secretary will be familiar with the criticisms made by the Engineering Employers Federation on behalf of its members over many months, but other industrial representatives are making similar criticisms. The British Rubber Manufacturers Association says that the levy will add 1 to 2 per cent. to its production costs. Representatives of firms making industrial gases through to the trade associations for convenience stores and for high street launderettes, each from their different perspective, are making comparable criticisms of the disproportionate impact that the levy is likely to have on them, with them paying far more out than they will receive in national insurance rebates, and of the complexity of the levy for small businesses in particular having to deal with the paperwork that it entails.
	The National Farmers Union estimates that the agricultural sector will pay out some £25 million in climate change levy and receive only about £9 million back in national insurance rebates. It is a badly designed tax. As the Secretary General of the United Kingdom Aluminium Federation said last year:
	"If ever a group sat down to design a racehorse and finished designing a camel, it was those Government Departments responsible for the climate change levy."
	Part of the problem arises from the fact that the Government have decided to link eligibility to enter a climate change agreement with the integrated pollution prevention and control regulations part A. The problem is that the IPPC is a system designed to capture the biggest polluters, not necessarily the biggest users of energy, so some big users of energy are excluded from the whole system of climate change agreements. The makers of industrial gases account for about 1 per cent. of the UK's entire consumption of electricity, yet they are ineligible to enter a climate change agreement. That sector faces an annual tax bill of perhaps £13 million in the first year and is likely to get rebates of perhaps £500,000 in national insurance contributions. The Cold Storage and Distribution Federation says that its members too are big energy users but are ineligible under the IPPC, yet for these companies up to 10 per cent. of total costs can be in electricity alone.
	The climate change levy will distort markets and put some British industries at a competitive disadvantage with their rivals elsewhere. British glassmakers have a climate change agreement, but their German competitors—who account for a quarter of the entire EU glass output—are exempt from such a tax altogether.
	The levy will even have some perverse environmental effects. In the steel industry, if a company uses acid to remove oxide scales—known as "pickling" in the industry—it can join a climate change agreement. However, if it uses a better, more environmentally friendly process—mechanical descaling—it falls outwith the IPPC regulations, and so is barred from entering the climate change agreement. Perversely, therefore, it will face a bigger bill from the levy as a result of having introduced a more environmentally friendly industrial practice.
	As other hon. Members have said, a complex system of administration has presented small businesses in particular with difficulties. The British Printing Industries Federation pointed out that
	"a printing company will not only be expected to spend a considerable amount of time filling in the necessary forms but will then have to calculate how much of its energy is used in the printing process as opposed to warehousing, offices and dispatch, which are not eligible for the discount."
	It concludes that
	"many companies just give up at this point."
	There are many other subjects on which I would wish to press the Minister, such as the Curry report's reference to the need for more incentives for biofuels and the Government's timetable for consultation on the landfill tax credit scheme. Why have the Government chosen to reject, according to a written answer on 4 March, the idea of a tax on incinerators?
	I want to conclude with another theme that has come through strongly from the Select Committee report: the need for much greater openness on the part of the Government in general and the Treasury in particular about how they research and track the effectiveness of their environmental policies. Paragraph 39 of the report states that
	"there is very little public knowledge of what research the Treasury is in fact carrying out."
	It quote Friends of the Earth as saying:
	"We are not always clear about what research they are doing".
	In paragraph 41, the Select Committee calls for a detailed environmental appraisal to be published as a supporting document for every future pre-Budget report. In paragraph 52, it again calls on the Government to make sustainable development reports from Departments subject to scrutiny and audit.
	I understand the Government's argument that the sustainable development reports are part of the process in Government for considering plans for a Budget document or public spending decisions, and that they should be kept confidential until those decisions are made and announced. However, I cannot for the life of me understand the case for keeping those reports and analyses secret even after the decisions have been made and announced. It will make for better parliamentary scrutiny and, even more important, better policy-making in the interests of our country and its people if the Government are prepared to be more open about the criteria that they use to introduce and design environmental taxes than they have chosen to be hitherto.

Paul Boateng: This has been an excellent debate. The number and quality of the contributions are a credit to the Committee, its Chairman and the seriousness of the subject matter. I exempt from those opening remarks the contribution of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) and the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor) who—characteristically, I am afraid—is not in his place. Their contributions were hackneyed, ill-informed, partisan and grudging in the extreme about the Government's undoubted achievements in this field. However, this has been a welcome opportunity for the House to consider these matters. I share the view of some right hon. and hon. Members that the House does not spend as much time as it ought in considering environmental matters, so this debate is all the more welcome.
	The Government's central economic objectives include the promotion of high and sustainable levels of growth and high levels of employment—growth must be stable and environmentally sustainable. Quality of growth matters, not just quantity. Delivering sustainable growth is a task that falls across Government. It is a core feature of economic policy under this Administration. The Treasury is committed to that goal. How and what we tax sends clear signals about the economic activities that we believe should be encouraged or discouraged, and the values that we wish to entrench in society. Just as work should be encouraged through the tax system, environmental pollution should be discouraged.
	To that end, the Government have implemented a range of policies across the tax system to deliver environmental objectives. That is an ongoing and incremental programme. Over time, the Government will aim to reform the tax system and increase incentives to reduce environmental damage. That will shift the burden of tax from "goods" to "bads", encourage innovation in meeting high environmental standards and deliver a more dynamic economy and a cleaner environment to everyone's benefit.
	I therefore take exception to the suggestion made by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) that this Government, and the Chancellor in particular, do not have much interest in environmental matters. He bemoaned the fact that the Chancellor was not present this afternoon. At the same time, he suggested, Janus-like, that somehow the Treasury had no business introducing the climate change levy because it is not an environmental Department. He cannot have it both ways. [Hon. Members: "Janus-like?"] That means looking both ways.
	The Chancellor has put environmental considerations at the heart of the Treasury. To suggest otherwise is to try it on; the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal knows better than that. I know that in some quarters he is regarded as a saintly figure in relation to the environment. My view is that his role is more impish than saintly, although I am prepared to accept that he is at least a candidate for beatification. That is to be welcomed, but I am a little sceptical about the evidence. Be that as it may, he ought to give some recognition to what the Government have achieved. I hope that he will take advantage of future opportunities to do that.
	Of course, environmental taxation must meet the general tests of good taxation. It must be well designed and meet objectives without undesirable side effects. It must keep deadweight compliance costs to a minimum. Yes, we must be concerned about such costs and ensure that the distributional impact is acceptable. Care must be taken of the implications for international competitiveness, and that is our role in relation to the climate change levy. Far from accepting the strictures of the hon. Member for Aylesbury, I would argue that we have done just that. Where environmental taxes meet the tests, the Government have used them and will continue to do so.
	The launch of our statement of intent on environmental taxation in 1997 gave a clear indication of what the Government were determined to achieve. We have taken crucial steps forward, but we are the first to accept that there is more to do. However, credit should be given for the steps that we have taken. Indeed, credit has been given by independent, objective observers.
	I note the contribution of the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois). I well remember him in his previous incarnation as the Conservative candidate in Brent, East. He showed all the necessary characteristics of a Conservative candidate in the borough of Brent. He was of brave heart and also demonstrated remarkable fleetness of foot. Both characteristics are necessary for someone who champions the Conservative cause in a borough such as mine. I am delighted that he has found a happy billet in Rayleigh and, no doubt, he has made and will make a distinguished contribution to the Committee on which he serves.
	The hon. Gentleman is wrong to suggest that our commitment has lessened, that the pace of reform has slowed or that there is insufficient leadership from the Treasury. Over the next year, we will deliver on a number of important commitments, with the introduction of the new company car tax system and a new levy on aggregate extraction. I know that the Environmental Audit Committee has supported many aspects of these policies as we have demonstrated their efficacy.
	Developing new tax systems has taken time. Much consultation with business, environmental groups and others has been required. I am sure that hon. Members will acknowledge and support the principle that consultation should be built into the policy process. Of course, we could move more quickly by implementing policies that had not been developed in that way, but that would be a false economy and, ultimately, would slow the pace of the reform that the overwhelming majority of those who have spoken in the debate want to happen. We have taken time to get our proposals right and to ensure that, as we protect the environment, we avoid adversely affecting either the businesses that drive economic growth or progress against our wider social objectives.
	We have also been making new proposals. I should like to draw the House's attention to several recent announcements, mainly because they demonstrate the importance of sustainable development to Government strategy and because they effectively challenge some of the conclusions of the Environmental Audit Committee's report.
	The Committee argues that we are not taking our strategy forward, yet we have made important progress on cleaner fuels and the pre-Budget report contains important new proposals on the green technology challenge. The Committee claims that we are not consulting stakeholders on new proposals, yet we are regularly meeting green non-governmental organisations and discussing new ideas with other Departments.
	The Committee asserts that there is insufficient appraisal of the impact of Budget measures, yet the pre-Budget report appraisal contained for the first time a link with the sustainability indicators of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Surely, the Committee should welcome that. The Committee opines that the Treasury is showing insufficient leadership, yet we have published guidance on sustainable development, required Departments to produce reports alongside their spending proposals and have agreed testing public service agreements on environmental targets. That must be, and is, good news.
	Let us turn to our new proposals. The Government have published the "Powering Future Vehicles" draft strategy, which is an important document considering the road vehicles of the future and the engines and the fuels needed to power them. The Treasury is a co-signatory to the document, which is an expression of our commitment to the environmental challenge. In the pre-Budget report, we confirmed that we will support this strategy with further tax incentives to be considered in the run-up to the Budget.
	The pre-Budget Report also confirmed that the Government will seek to introduce further tax incentives to support environmentally friendly investment in three important areas. The green technology challenge envisages enhanced capital allowances for a further range of energy-saving technologies, for cleaner fuels and vehicles and for minimising water use and improving water quality. That is not the sign of a Government who have lost their way or who are pausing to gather breath; it is the sign of a Government who are committed to new initiatives, to the consultative process and to ensuring that stakeholders are with us on the changes that are necessary. We are moving forward.
	I want to say a word about stakeholders, because we have made it absolutely clear that they had to be central to the development of new measures. That is why the climate change levy was preceded by Lord Marshall's taskforce on economic instruments and the business use of energy. That is why the aggregates levy was the subject of extensive discussion with the industry, including detailed consideration of the industry's proposals for a voluntary package, which we were not prepared to accept. Furthermore, our treatment of the issue of pesticides should not give anyone cause to believe for one moment that, if the voluntary approach does not work, we will hesitate to legislate. Make no bones about it: we will. We are determined to give the voluntary route a chance, but if it fails, no one should be in any doubt as to the determined action that will be taken.
	The non-governmental organisations are with us on this. Chris Hewett, senior research fellow of the Institute for Public Policy Research, said in an article in New Economy that
	"there is no doubt that Labour has been the greenest government Britain has ever seen".
	Norman Glass, of the National Centre for Social Research, said:
	"What has been particularly striking has been the role of the Treasury in achieving this."
	Far be it from Treasury Ministers to blow the trumpet of the Treasury—that would never do—but to suggest that the Treasury has been holding back progress does not give credit where credit is due.
	However, it is important that, as we propose new tax measures, we should have that vital dialogue with other relevant Government Departments—the Departments for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and of Trade and Industry. We are still very much in the market for new environmental tax measures, where a good case is made and the conditions set out in the statement of intent are satisfied.
	On appraisal, it is absolutely vital that even policies designed and implemented with the support of stakeholders should pass their reality check. That is why we are committed to a full and frank system of appraisal. We are committed to an evaluation of the environmental impact of all Budget measures. That was not a characteristic of the Government of which the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal was a member. They never issued clear guidance to all Departments on how to undertake environmental appraisals. They never ensured that the links between Budget measures and sustainability were made clear. All these measures will have a significant impact on the environment, and will serve an environmental purpose, so I absolutely reject the charge that the pre-Budget report fails to capture comprehensively the environmental impact of Budget measures; it does.
	On leadership, no one should doubt our determination. Departments with a public service agreement have been requested to produce a sustainable development report, to be submitted alongside the analysis of resources in spring 2002. We do not discourage the establishment of PSAs with sustainability impacts. Many PSAs have a direct impact on the achievement of our sustainable development targets. Merely adding the words "sustainable development" to PSA targets would not increase that impact. We are determined, however, to ensure that they do make a difference.
	It is perfectly true that sustainable development reports will not be published. Why not? Because they are internal documents, intended to clarify Departments' thinking about the implications of their policies. That is what they are for. They are not meant to be glossy brochures where the by-product is yet another reduction in our stock of timber. They are working documents, designed to achieve a specific result, and we are determined that they should do so.
	Let us have no illusions about what would happen if the Treasury announced an intention to allow other bodies—the Environmental Audit Committee or the National Audit Office—to audit the Departments' efforts. The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) knows very well the way of Departments. He has served as a Minister. He knows the disciplines of preparation for a spending round and he knows that the awareness of a forthcoming audit would inhibit the analysis of Departments, because they would have an eye on what would subsequently be made public.
	We are serious; we want the output of those Departments in the process to add value to the work. We do not want it to be a box-ticking exercise. Nevertheless, in the aftermath of this process I would be happy to consider with the hon. Gentleman and the Committee how best we can ensure that it is demonstrably a real process, which has made a real difference, and we are only too happy to receive any ideas that he and the Committee have about how best we can do that, subject to the caveats that I have given.
	I challenge the notion that the Treasury is not offering sufficient leadership. PSAs, sustainable development guidance, sustainable development reports and the integration of sustainable development into the spending review all suggest otherwise.
	I do not accept that the policy is too complex. It is a complex world; the environmental challenge is complicated and our policy response must capture that complexity, not superimpose an artificial simplicity that would be bad for business, society and, ultimately, the environment.
	Time marches on, and I am aware that another important subject will be debated this afternoon. However, I want to ensure that right hon. and hon. Members understand the seriousness with which we take this subject. I will seek to address in correspondence a number of the other points that have been made by right hon. and hon. Members. In conclusion, I would argue that we have done a lot, but that there is still more to do. We are grateful to the Committee—and its distinguished Chairman, the hon. Member for Orpington—for the commitment and determination that it displays in its work in challenging the Government to do yet more. I do not believe that the House or future generations, to whom we are ultimately accountable, will find us wanting in that respect.

John Horam: I waive my right to reply in view of the immense frustration felt by my fellow Select Committee Chairman, the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George).

Madam Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman.
	Question deferred, pursuant to paragraphs (4) and (5) of Standing Order No. 54 (Consideration of estimates &c.) and Order [20 November 2000].

Terrorism

[Relevant documents: Second Report from the Defence Committee, Session 2001-02, on the Threat from Terrorism, HC 348-I, and the Government's response thereto, HC 667; and The Ministry of Defence: Annual Report 2001, Cm 5109.]
	Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That further resources, not exceeding £2,058,352,000, be authorised for use during the year ending on 31st March 2002, and that a sum, not exceeding £1,636,556,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund for the year ending on 31st March 2002 for expenditure by the Ministry of Defence.—[Mr. Stringer.]

Bruce George: I very much welcome this short debate, which will be far shorter than I had expected. When the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) and I decided who would go first, in the time-honoured way of tossing a coin, I had no idea that the Environmental Audit Committee would get almost three hours and the Defence Committee would get an hour and a half.
	I am sorry to begin my speech on a sour note, but I certainly want to avoid any other Committee that spends a great deal of time producing a good report being pushed into a time corner because of some ridiculous procedures in the House. This place continues to baffle, bemuse and anger me. We have just listened to an important debate, but the time constraints on us are truly unfair given what we are now discussing, although I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's fine gesture in forgoing his winding-up speech.
	I should certainly like to thank the Liaison Committee for agreeing to this snippet of a debate on the threat from terrorism. We in the Defence Committee have produced an excellent report, which deserves to be considered in a much longer debate. The events of 11 September shocked the world, and the effects of those atrocities were felt around the globe and will continue to resonate for years to come.
	Al-Qaeda seemed to turn a new page in the long and bloody history of terrorism, presenting us with a new threat that is global in reach and ruthless in scale and horror. Its ambition and technology are unsophisticated, yet sophisticated; it is able to adapt to new circumstances, and I am not certain whether we will be able to adapt to new circumstances as effectively. As we say in our report, there is now a danger that a new benchmark in horror has been set.
	In the course of our inquiry, we took evidence from a number of experts in the field; from the MOD, the Secretary of State and officials. We are grateful to them and to our advisers for their contribution. In my remarks, I will address two principal issues. The first is the nature of the new threat. In fact, is it new? How is it qualitatively different from those that we have faced in the past? Secondly, I want to look briefly at what steps we—and particularly the MOD and the Government—might take in response.
	I see myself being ever more like Victor Meldrew as I go on, but, before I talk about the issues, I would like to comment on the Government's reply, which was excellent. However, we published our report on 18 December last year and we might have expected a reply by 15 February. In fact, the Defence Committee received the reply on the late afternoon of the day before yesterday. We published it this morning, before our Committee has had a chance to read it properly and, I presume, before hon. Members on both sides of the House would have read it. I ask the Minister, with due deference, to try to persuade his Department to produce responses in the time allotted and certainly to give the Government's response prior to a debate on the report, to allow hon. Members a chance to read it.
	The threat is the substance of today's debate. The first question to be posed is how we face this new and qualitatively different threat from a new breed of terrorist. This is the question we ought to answer. The attacks of 11 September were not al-Qaeda's first terrorist outrage. There were several previously; in Saudi Arabia, at US embassies in east Africa and the attack on the USS Cole. Many people forget that there was a dummy run at the World Trade Centre by al-Qaeda in 1993, when a van packed with explosives was detonated in an underground car park—six people were killed and hundreds injured—in an attempt to topple one tower on to the other with massive casualties.
	The events of 11 September stand out as unique in their appalling nature. Having examined all the previous attacks, our conclusion was that
	"a threshold has been crossed in terms of scale and level of casualties."
	We were concerned that it is not only al-Qaeda that is a threat; other terrorist organisations would try to exceed the carnage of 11 September.
	The Committee pointed out the dangers from weapons of mass destruction, and we looked into this in detail. The Government's response was that there was a risk of such attacks on the UK, but that it "remains low". That may be so. It may be a low risk, but if there were an attack using weapons of mass destruction, God forbid, the consequences could be catastrophic. One only has to imagine what would happen if an aeroplane were crashed into Sellafield, or if a biological agent were released on the tube, or if a chemical tanker were blown up in an urban centre. The Committee has received evidence and information on each of those scenarios and others, and they were, frankly, terrifying.
	The Committee and the Government need to think seriously about how we plan against such threats, which are deemed to be "low risk" but which, if they did occur, would have overwhelming and potentially catastrophic consequences. Such threats are the hallmark of asymmetric warfare. We need to prepare much better. To put it simply, in the past we have graded threats by combining an assessment of their potential severity with an assessment of their likelihood. We would expect to take action where a threat scored highly under each assessment.
	Now, with new asymmetric threats—especially where they involve unconventional weapons such as chemical, biological or radiological weapons—they may not score highly in terms of likelihood, but that must not be used as an excuse for inaction.
	The second theme is countering the threat. How can we do it? The threat seems to be amorphous and ill-defined and, even after the recent events in Afghanistan, we must not underestimate the continuing capabilities of those who would choose to attack us. The threat comes not just from al-Qaeda, which has a presence in 60 countries, but from other militant Islamic groups and states that sponsor terrorism. In addition, there may be other threats of which we are unaware. I do not want to be over-alarmist, but we have to think long and hard—indeed, short and hard—about the problem. The Americans do not underestimate the threat. It established an Office of Homeland Security and, as we all know, increased its defence budget by $48 billion for 2003, which puts the figures in our spring supplementary estimates into perspective.
	The Government are working on a new chapter to the strategic defence review and will publish their findings, I presume in July or thereabouts. We hope that resources will match any new threats that emerge. The Select Committee is closely monitoring that and will report on it.
	The Committee is examining the defence and security of the United Kingdom, which goes beyond its traditional scope. It is important to bring together the work of the Ministry of Defence, the Treasury, the Cabinet Office, the intelligence services, the private sector and the governments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. All those must be calibrated to produce an efficient response.
	No doubt my colleagues will want to give their impressions of our major inquiry so far. I am not at liberty to disclose the details of the work that we have done on the substantive issues, but there is an urgency to it.
	Resources are not an issue in the United States in its war against terrorism. We asked a senior official about that, who replied, with a shrug of his shoulders, "We're a rich country." We are not a poor country, and money must be spent. The protection of our citizens must be one of the first priorities—if not the first priority—of any Government. The spring supplementary estimates show that the Government have not shirked their responsibilities. Our report on the threat of terrorism demonstrates that the commitment must not be short term. That report, which we published in December, said:
	"Whatever the outcome of the present action in Afghanistan or the fate of Osama Bin Laden and al Qaeda, we cannot expect to neutralize the new threats easily or quickly. The campaign against terrorism has been described as three-pronged in that it includes military, diplomatic and humanitarian initiatives. This three-pronged campaign must be pursued both legitimately and relentlessly. We must not lose our sense of the urgency and importance of this task in the months ahead. We must not hesitate to take the necessary steps to protect the UK and our interests overseas."

David Laws: I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in the debate. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) and his Committee colleagues on the excellent contribution that their report of last year makes to our deliberations. I shall endeavour to follow his lead by being brief so that others can speak.
	It is clear from the context of the atrocious terrorist outrage on 11 September that we could vastly increase our defence expenditure on military forces and still not protect ourselves from similar terrorist attacks. It is notable that that attack took place in a country that spends a greater proportion of its gross national product on the military than any other. It is clear that in the United States and the United Kingdom alone there are thousands of high-profile targets, including public buildings, military establishments and individuals, all of which could be the target of a terrorist attack. It would be impossible to provide an increase in military presence that would afford them all protection, even if we could find the resources.
	The Committee's report puts the problems in context. It asks how we can tackle the causes of terrorism, disrupt terrorist networks in the short term and ensure that they cannot carry on their work, and, in particular, avoid running the risk of a catastrophic terrorist event as highlighted in the report. I should like to draw out a couple of points from the Select Committee report and raise a number of issues with the Minister on those specific subjects.
	Following 11 September, how is the Ministry of Defence working with other parts of government with security responsibilities, particularly MI5, MI6 and GCHQ, to identify terrorist threats worldwide and disrupt such activities? I know that that is not the Minister's direct responsibility but we understand from the newspapers that there has been an increase in their resourcing since 11 September, and it would be interesting to know how the MOD is working with those agencies to disrupt terrorist networks. If those agencies are to be increasingly important in dealing with the threat of terrorism, there should be more visibility and more accountability to this place for their expenditure.
	The right hon. Member for Walsall, South mentioned the catastrophic threats identified in the Select Committee report. Although it would be impossible to defend ourselves against the wealth of risks to our country by increasing protection of all our key sites, it is clear that investment in protection of the UK and our allies from nuclear, biological and chemical attacks is immensely important. We would be grateful to hear from the Government today what action they are taking to remove from circulation the stockpiles of such weapons around the world and reduce the risk that terrorists might use such deadly weapons against civilian and military populations, with catastrophic effects.
	On those specific threats, the Committee report considers how the MOD integrates with the civil contingency agencies that have a prime role in leading our response to certain events. It is understandable, as the Committee said, that civil agencies should lead the response to flooding, foot and mouth and riots, for example, but, importantly, it noted that it might be appropriate for the MOD to play a clearer role in responding to the more serious threats—nuclear, chemical and biological—that we might face from terrorist organisations.
	It would be inappropriate to end without saying something about Iraq, which is very much on the agenda at the moment and which the US Administration have portrayed as part of their continuing battle against the threat of international terrorism. I shall not repeat, particularly in this short debate, the comments that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) made yesterday in the Westminster Hall debate that attracted considerable public and press attention. Suffice it to say that he laid down clearly and precisely our party's concern about the noises coming out of the US Administration.
	The Government must be well aware of the risks of mounting a serious attack on Iraq, especially the risk to the coalition against terrorism. Although I understand why they are keen to continue the close alliance with the United States, which has existed not just since 11 September but, fortunately, over many decades, they have a responsibility to use their special position to convey to the US Administration some of the concerns expressed in this place, and no doubt among members of the Government as well as on the Government Benches. In that way, we may avoid the worst excesses that could be possible if some of those in the US Administration get their way.

Tam Dalyell: I endorse what the hon. Gentleman said about the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). It should be read. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there are great qualms in the United States itself about the proposed course of action?

David Laws: The Father of the House is right to point out that there is concern in the United States as well as in Parliament. Let us hope that the time available before serious military activity is contemplated is sufficient to enable wise heads to prevail. The Government have an important part to play in that respect.

Julian Lewis: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that Saddam Hussein has for some years defied the requirements of the international community that he open his territory for inspection, and that the reason for those requirements is the belief that he is trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction? Is he saying that it is Liberal Democrat policy that if adequate evidence emerges that Saddam Hussein is acquiring weapons of mass destruction, we should do nothing to stop it?

David Laws: On terrorism, the hon. Gentleman is well aware that no information available so far links Iraq to the 11 September events. My party takes extremely seriously the prospects of all countries that do not currently have nuclear weapons acquiring them, and we hope that the current situation can be used to give us the leverage necessary to get inspectors back into Iraq, so that we can find out whether such weapons are being accumulated. That would be our preference over short-term measures that use military action without first going down those paths.
	Because of the short time available, I shall not speak much longer, but let me say that although it would be naive in the extreme to pretend that the short-term threat from terrorism can be dealt with through longer-term measures to deal with poverty and injustice throughout the world, or that such measures would have any great effect in the short term, I hope that in the spirit of that appalling and overused phrase "joined-up government" the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development will work far more closely together to deal with the sources of discontent that lie in poverty and injustice. That, in the longer term, offers us the hope of dealing with international terrorism at source.
	Although the Government are to be praised for the progress made since their election in 1997 to put overseas development assistance back on the political agenda, I ask the Minister, even though it is not his responsibility, to pay heed to the large number of Members of Parliament who now want the Government to set a time scale on the delivery of the United Nations target of 0.7 per cent. of gross national product going to overseas aid. I hope that that and some of the other measures in the Select Committee report will enable us to tackle the causes of international terrorism, and remove and destroy the seeds of future terrorism.

Gavin Strang: The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) will understand why I do not take time to respond to his remarks.
	I welcome this opportunity to discuss how we deploy our resources in the light of the threat of international terrorism. Our requirements of our armed forces since the end of the cold war have changed immeasurably. On taking office, the Government launched the strategic defence review, the conclusions of which were published in 1998. It made it clear that the Government wanted this country to be a force for good in the world.
	The Government are to be congratulated on recognising the need for a strategic overhaul of our defence capabilities to ensure that we could meet the challenges of the new environment following the end of the cold war. However, no one could have predicted our armed forces becoming involved in the many and diverse actions in which they have become involved, including those in East Timor, Sierra Leone and Kosovo. It is a long time since our armed forces conducted so many concurrent activities abroad.
	The events of 11 September mean that we need to refocus our military policies and capabilities. The Government are right to draw up what they call "The Strategic Defence Review: A New Chapter". I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has launched a public discussion paper to influence the work and the final conclusions.
	The world changed on 11 September 2001. The attacks raise important issues, such as weapons of mass destruction, a subject touched on by the Chairman of the Defence Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) I pay tribute to the work done by him and his Committee. There is no doubt in my mind that if the terrorists responsible for those atrocities had had the capability to use weapons of mass destruction, they would have done so. I have no doubt that they will do so if they ever acquire the materials and the skills necessary. We must urgently address the threat of weapons of mass destruction.
	As I have said before, it is no secret that the international measures to contain the development of weapons of mass destruction leave a lot to be desired. Indeed, the Select Committee report identifies some of the weaknesses in that regard. We must step up our efforts to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction. We do not want to regret not having done so.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister and the Ministry of Defence on the discussion paper, which is open for public responses until the end of next week, and the proposed new chapter.
	There are additional or enhanced roles for our reserve forces, both in home defence and security and in overseas operations, but because of the pressure of time, I shall not set out the arguments for them.
	Equally briefly, I welcome the announcement—there is one press report to this effect, which I trust is accurate—that the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, DERA, will not be floated on the stock market. I hope that the Government will put the privatisation option behind them and that we can move forward. We can discuss that later, on the basis of defence research being carried out in the public sector.

Angus Robertson: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government should also reconsider the prospective privatisation of the defence fire service?

Gavin Strang: I certainly do.
	In the light of 11 September, we must take another look at the resources that we devote to our defence. What military resources are we talking about? I shall consider intelligence. Signal and human intelligence will play a crucial role in our fight against terrorism. Unlike two armies lining up against each other, a terrorist threat is not in the public domain. The Government are providing additional money for intelligence.
	Co-operation with other countries, especially the United States, will be extremely important, but because of our colonial past some European countries have a particular relationship with communities and countries that are relevant to the fight against terrorism. The United Kingdom and France in particular come to mind. As a result, there are circumstances in which we may be in a better position than the US to get intelligence.
	Once we have acquired and analysed the intelligence, we must respond. If military action is required, we need the most modern equipment practical and the highest calibre personnel available, with all the back-up that they require.
	I understand that the finances announced alongside the strategic defence review were tight, but adequate and that defence chiefs and Ministers thought that they could just get by, but no more, on the amounts allocated. That is appropriate: the Labour Government had other key priorities and there was no scope for giving defence more than was justified. I think that it was Aneurin Bevan, the architect of the national health service and the Minister for Health in the 1945 Labour Government who said that government was the language of priorities.
	Since the publication of the strategic defence review, our armed forces have had to do far more than we could ever have expected, and to their credit, they have done it. We must adequately fund our military to enable them to do what is required of them. To put it starkly, if we do not, our service men and women will be killed and we will lose.
	When the strategic defence review was published, the judgment was that Britain no longer faced a significant direct external threat to its security. That assessment may no longer hold. With the new challenges before us, we must give our military increased resources to enable them to do what we ask of them, or change what we ask. It is not fair on our service people to do otherwise.
	We need more money to fund our service people and ongoing associated costs, but a range of vital procurement programmes must also be adequately resourced. We must ensure that they are not delayed for financial reasons. That would affect not only our capability in terms of military hardware, but the morale of our service people.
	We all understand why the defence budget has gone down as much as it has—by 29 per cent. in real terms since 1989-90. There was a consensus among all parties that the end of the cold war justified a peace dividend. That is another way of saying that we have cut our armed forces significantly under both parties.
	Historically, we are not an isolationist country. Most hon. Members supported the Government's aim of being a force for good and their commitment to deploying military resources to that end. We are rightly proud of the achievements of our armed forces, including, for example, the ongoing operation in Sierra Leone. We must now recognise that if we are serious about rising to the challenge of 11 September, we must provide significant additional resources. As the Select Committee said:
	"If we are to add a new chapter to the SDR, we must add the money to pay for it."

John Stanley: I applaud the report of the Select Committee on Defence and join the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) in criticising the way in which this debate has been truncated. It is perhaps still open to the Leader of the House to come to the Chamber and table a business motion restoring to the debate the three hours that had been envisaged for it.
	Like other hon. Members who have spoken, I want to refer in particular to the implications here in the home base of the United Kingdom of the threat from terrorists. Before dealing with the United Kingdom, however, I should like to highlight a particular overseas deployment from which there are some valuable lessons to be learned. I refer to that which has occurred since 11 September to Tampa, Florida, where United States Central Command—CENTCOM—and United States Special Operations Command—SOCOM—are located. I visited Tampa last month as a member of the Defence Committee of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. There is little doubt that the success that British and American forces have had in working together co-operatively—they have done so with a remarkable degree of success on the ground in Afghanistan—was materially aided by the rapid and effective tri-service deployment to CENTCOM after 11 September.
	There is a very valuable lesson to be learned from what happened. The ambit around the world of US Central Command's territorial command by no means includes all countries that might be future sources of al-Qaeda terrorist activity. I hope that the Ministry of Defence is now preparing for the possibility of making similar deployments should they become necessary at any time to US Pacific Command, which has responsibility for most of the far east and part of the Indian subcontinent, and also to US European Command, which is responsible for a number of the African states. There are very valuable lessons to be learned from the success of the deployment to US Central Command.
	The Ministry of Defence made an astute judgment in choosing to position as the senior British officer in CENTCOM a three-star general who has a strong background in special forces operations and ranks equally to the American deputy commander of CENTCOM—the deputy to General Tommy Franks. That, too, was a very good judgment by the Ministry of Defence.
	There is no doubt that the war against terrorism will be very protracted. I suspect that it will continue for years rather than months and involve a considerable number of countries. We know that the United States has already identified the countries that are dubbed "the axis of terror", but perhaps even more significant is the action that it has taken—rightly, in my view—to identify friendly Governments who face terrorist threats inside their own countries, as well as seeking to reinforce those Governments' ability to deal with such threats.
	I was struck by a report in Tuesday's Evening Standard, which said:
	"Money, arms and US advisers are earmarked for Indonesia, Uzbekistan, Nepal, Jordan, Kazakhstan and Kyrgystan".
	As chairman of the Nepal all-party group, I welcome the inclusion of Nepal in the list. That young, genuinely free multiparty democracy faces a serious threat from Maoist terrorists. As hon. Members know, in the past two or three weeks, the worst murderous Maoist attack has occurred in western Nepal. In it, 129 people were killed, including 76 police officers and 48 members of the Royal Nepalese armed forces.
	It is perhaps a pity that the Nepalese look to the United States for support in their war against terrorism, given our long and close military connection with Nepal and the enormous sacrifices that Gurkha soldiers made in two world wars and most recently in the Balkans. It is therefore disappointing that the British armed forces are perhaps too stretched to give material help to Nepal in its hour of need. I hope that the Ministry of Defence will reflect on that.

Tam Dalyell: As vice-chairman of the Nepal group, I endorse the right hon. Gentleman's comments.

John Stanley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and vice-chairman of the group.
	Let us consider the United Kingdom. The Government made two significant statements in the immediate aftermath of 11 September. The right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang) echoed one of them. The first was the Prime Minister's statement on 14 September. When he spoke of the al-Qaeda terrorists, he said:
	"We know, that they would, if they could, go further and use chemical, biological, or even nuclear weapons of mass destruction."—[Official Report, 14 September 2001; Vol. 372, c. 606.]
	The second statement was contained in the paper, "Responsibility for the Terrorist Atrocities in the United States, 11 September 2001", which the Government placed in the Library on 4 October. It states:
	"The clear conclusions reached by the government are: . . . the United Kingdom, and United Kingdom nationals are potential targets".
	I do not believe that there is ground for revising either statement in the light of subsequent events in Afghanistan. Indeed, we would be seriously deluded if we believed that the overthrow of the Taliban regime has diminished the threat from al-Qaeda to the United Kingdom, the United States and possibly other countries. That organisation remains intact in many countries; as we have witnessed in recent days, it is far from finished even in Afghanistan. We do not know whether Osama bin Laden is still alive and operating, but if he is not, there is little doubt that he will have a successor.
	The threat remains, and we must take it seriously. I am worried about whether we are doing that. The United States takes it extremely seriously; the Secretary of Health and Human Services has announced that his Department will procure sufficient smallpox vaccine to immunise the entire American population in the event of a smallpox attack. When I was in the United States at the end of last year, coast-to-coast television broadcast a full-scale exercise in one state, showing the civil and the military emergency services—the National Guard—responding to an anthrax attack.
	In this country, so far as I am aware, we have had no statement whatever from the Secretary of State for Health on the availability of smallpox vaccine, or any others. To the best of my knowledge, no exercises involving military and civilian personnel have taken place in any part of the United Kingdom—on the ground, as opposed to paper exercises in offices—to ascertain how we would respond for real in dealing with an attack on this country using weapons of mass destruction.
	I appreciate that the Ministry of Defence is not in the lead on civil contingency planning, but there is one question that has to be asked of the Ministry, and answered by it. It is simply this: in the event of an attack on the United Kingdom using weapons of mass destruction—particularly chemical or biological weapons—and a request being made by the civil power for military assistance from the Ministry of Defence, probably in hour one of day one of such an attack, will the Ministry be able to give an adequate response to that call for assistance? That is the key question, and one which, I trust, lies in the in-tray of the Secretary of State for Defence. I have a strong feeling that, if that question were asked today in such circumstances, the answer would be, "We are wholly inadequately resourced to supply the degree of military assistance that would be required."
	The threat—and the effect of the threat—is widely known and has been well publicised by the Ministry. In 1999, the Ministry published a document entitled "Defending against the threat from biological and chemical weapons", which has lain largely uncommented on and unreported in the Library of the House of Commons. To my knowledge, no previous Government had ever published such a document, and I believe that the Conservatives would have done well to publish one when we were in government.
	Much of this debate is conducted in general terms, and I can see why, because I understand the public's sensitivities. Occasionally, however, it is necessary to get into specifics, and I want to give just one illustration from the Ministry of Defence's document. It describes the various chemical and biological agents that might be used, and gives details of the effects. I shall refer to one, the biological agent of plague, which I imagine we all remember distantly from our history lessons at school. The document describes the effects of plague thus:
	"Following 2-3 days of incubation, fever, coma and respiratory failure occur, leading to death in 48 hours."
	That, by and large, would be the impact of a biological weapon attack on any population centre.
	In those circumstances, there will be two absolute imperatives. The first will be to bring such medical help as can be made available to those who have been caught in the infected area and who have the infection. The second imperative will be to try to contain movement so as to prevent the infection being spread more widely—conceivably, right across the country. That will be the critical role for the Ministry of Defence. I have to ask the Minister whether anyone believes that the resources of the police will be sufficient on their own to prevent the movement of large numbers of very frightened people. That is a real question that the Ministry of Defence has to face and to answer, because that will be the nature of the military assistance that will be required.
	I want to put three proposals to the Minister. First, I hope that the Government will now update and revise this public document. It needs revision post 11 September, and it needs addition in the key area for the Ministry of Defence to which I have referred.
	Remarkably, when the document reaches the section that is euphemistically headed "Managing the Consequences"—the consequences of a chemical or biological weapon attack on this country—the role of the MOD is described in just six words:
	"The Armed Forces assist as required."
	That is a wholly unsatisfactory and insufficient response to the situation. It begs fundamental questions about that response. How many members of our armed forces will be required and on what time scale—I suggest that the answer to that is instantly—which units and which formation will those forces come from, how sufficiently will they be trained and how adequately will that training be exercised? Those are among the key questions, which I hope the Defence Committee will pursue on behalf of the House, getting access to whatever classified information is required.

Eric Joyce: With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, he is making a long speech, and quite a lot of Members want to speak.

John Stanley: I shall conclude my remarks.
	The second proposal that I want to put to the Minister is that the MOD's contingency planning in this area should be updated and implemented fully. Thirdly, contrary to what is said in the Government's response to the Defence Committee's report, I believe that it is imperative that they reverse the serious reduction in the Territorial Army that has taken place since they came to power.

David Crausby: The decent people of the world were horrified by the events of 11 September, not because they were in sympathy with the United States Government, but because they felt for the American people. The atrocity carried out on that shameful day involved the murder of members of the general public. We must remember that it was an act aimed not at the Government or the military, but at everyday people from countries throughout the world who were unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. They were firefighters, office staff, cleaners, maintenance people, tourists and even small children sat on their parent's knee.
	I am not convinced that the world changed completely on 11 September, because the threat from terrorism had been growing for decades. The asymmetric threat had developed alongside the possibility of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons becoming increasingly available to unscrupulous and even unhinged political and religious extremists. What changed on that day was that al-Qaeda, clearly supported by the Taliban regime, showed its readiness to commit such an act without fear of the consequences. Until then it was assumed that no one would be mad enough to detonate a nuclear weapon in one of our cities because of the consequences for their own cities.
	What was also very different was that there were no negotiable demands: it was an act based in hatred and evil. When faced with such anger, the Americans had little choice but to respond with all their considerable might. What also changed was that the Americans felt justified in their determination to take conclusive action, not just in revenge but to defend themselves and to ensure that there would be no repeat of the events in New York, Washington and Pittsburgh.
	The long-term reality of the effectiveness of defence may, of course, be different. There can never be complete and absolute protection for our homeland from that type of attack. When suicide extremists are involved, and have the support of one or more state regimes, defence becomes an entirely different and much more dangerous business. The Americans are entitled to do their best to protect themselves at home. That is their duty, just as it is ours to increase security in an increasingly pluralist world.
	However, it cannot be possible to cover every eventuality. The nature of our enemies' tactics will be to attack what we do not cover. What happened last September in America shows that they will have no scruples about who they kill, or where or how they do it.
	The harsh and unpleasant truth is that if we do not deal with the source of the infection, we are doomed to failure. That is why an attack on Afghanistan after a period of negotiation with the Taliban was fully justified. The Americans considered their action, and took their time. They were right to do what they had to do, and the British Government were right to support them.
	The Americans recently increased their defence budget by $48 billion. That is nearly one and a half times the total of our defence budget, and it puts in perspective the increases proposed in the estimates today. Clearly, we must provide our forces with the resources that they need.
	It gives me no pleasure to speak in favour of war, but we cannot and must not allow individuals and organisations freely to prepare for the destruction of our entire way of life. It is critical that we do what is necessary as peacefully and responsibly as possible.

Patrick Mercer: Is the hon. Gentleman speaking in favour of war, or in favour of a wholly rational defence?

David Crausby: I hesitate to speak in favour of war, but I accept that war is the last resort in defence. I therefore agree with the implication in the hon. Gentleman's question.
	However, we must involve the rest of the democratic world in what needs to be achieved. We have seen what has happened in the middle east when a policy that is based exclusively on an attempt to crush the opposition is employed. Questions of poverty, freedom and equality will inevitably play a part in the resolution of the world's differences, as will the way in which we deal with the trade in drugs.
	Terrorism feeds on poverty, and is very often funded by the illegal drugs trade. Our efforts to eradicate world poverty and end the trade in heroin, for example, must be at the forefront of what we do. However, in the end, we must deter those who consider action against our people, and we must be prepared to take pre-emptive strikes against those who threaten us. To achieve that, the roles of the Royal Marines, the Parachute Regiment and special forces should be enhanced in any future strategic defence review.
	The threat facing us is entirely different from the threat posed during the cold war. Attacks on our nation will no longer come across the English channel. We need to plan the location and nature of our defences with that in mind.
	One of the most important challenges involves the development of ballistic missiles by hostile regimes.

Mike Hancock: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the possibility of exercising our right to mounting a pre-emptive strike. Before we put people in harm's way, is he satisfied that the intelligence agencies of this country and our allies are co-ordinating their approach? Are they prepared to share all available information at the appropriate time to safeguard the deployment of our troops?

David Crausby: I think it is naive to expect that the intelligence services would share information with everyone concerned, but I am happy enough that the country has a sufficiently good relationship with America for that to be possible. Whether it would extend to other nations is for them to deal with.
	The problem of missiles must be tackled before it is too late, and we witness, for example, the destruction of a European city. If that happened to London or Manchester, many of our constituents would demand the most vicious revenge. They would expect the most extreme action to be taken against the perpetrators. The Government have a serious responsibility to prevent such a scenario, by whatever means, and they are entirely justified in taking whatever action is needed in the cause of sustainable peace and security.

Hugh Robertson: I am advised by the Registrar that I should start by drawing attention to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests. I am a member of the Regular Army Reserve of Officers, and of the regimental council of my old regiment.
	I want to register, also, my dissatisfaction at the fact that such an important debate has been confined to such a short period at the end of the parliamentary day—I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House agree about that. I have sat here for nearly eight hours, and after sitting through two debates I have been asked to limit my speech to five minutes. I will certainly do that so that others can speak, but it is not very satisfactory when such an important matter is being discussed.
	It is appropriate to pay tribute to the Chairman and members of the Select Committee for their excellent report, and—as in any debate of this nature—to our excellent armed forces, both those deployed in the fight against terrorism and those performing other tasks throughout the world. They are the best possible advertisement for the United Kingdom, and they deserve our thanks, support and admiration.
	I think that it is fair to pay tribute to the Government, both for their decision to deploy resources in the war against terrorism and for the success of what has been done so far. Much has been achieved, although, as I am sure Ministers will be the first to admit, a great deal remains to be done.
	I had intended to mention some of the things that I thought had worked well in the war against terrorism, and some that had worked less well, but because of the time constraints I will simply identify a few equipment issues that I think the Ministry should address. It is probably unsurprising that these gaps have appeared, given the new and immediate nature of the threat we now face.
	The first equipment issue relates to ISTAR—intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance. It is crucial, for two reasons—the need to target terrorists accurately, and the need to avoid collateral damage and civilian casualties. Much has been achieved since the strategic defence review, but much more needs to be done if Europe and the United Kingdom are to match United States capabilities. Those who want a practical example need only consider the success of the United States Predator unmanned spy plane, and the technology gap between that and our equivalent, the Phoenix.
	Strategic air transport also gives cause for concern. The United Kingdom's long-range heavy-transport aircraft are currently leased from the United States, while the Airbus 400M is bogged down in political difficulties. Those difficulties must be resolved.
	Our lack of a deep-strike capability is also important. It is important not just to the expeditionary warfare in which we are currently engaged, but to the sustaining of humanitarian operations away from the UK base. It is, in fact, a large, secure floating base for our troops. I welcome the decision to order two new aircraft carriers—60,000 tonnes rather than 20,000—but we must recognise that there is a gap in our order of battle until they arrive.
	Following 11 September, it is also important that we address the deeply worrying lack of an integrated, land-based air defence system in the UK homeland. Without such a system, our country has no means of enforcing air exclusion zones around key points such as nuclear power stations, the City of London and transport hubs. In the short term, we clearly need to redeploy fighter aircraft to protect those points, but the issue must still be addressed.
	The other lesson that immediately emerges from 11 September is the need to broaden the scope of defence policy. If the war against terrorism is to be successfully prosecuted, military, humanitarian, political, diplomatic, financial and legal resources must be provided. Afghanistan is a particularly good example. If we had deployed timely economic aid after the Soviet invasion, there is a good chance that the current conflict would have been prevented.
	What are the lessons for the future? We must increase defence expenditure. The question is one of credibility. The Government tell us that the threat is very real, and I wholly believe them. If the UK is to meet that threat in concert with the United States, more money must be spent. The United States has recognised that fact—its defence spending has risen by 14 per cent. There are also signs that it may turn inwards, which would increase the burden on Europe. The European rapid reaction force has identified 150 basic defence capabilities, 40 of which—a considerable number—will remain outstanding by the end of next year. It is now a matter of record that our Prime Minister has ambitions for Africa. They will inevitably cost money, and troops will be required to carry them out. We must be honest: meeting this threat—if we are serious about it—will simply cost us more money.
	It is also important to tackle overstretch. We in this House argue about the exact figures, but we agree that overstretch exists. It is vital that sufficient numbers of troops be ready for immediate deployment, and that they have time to train and to recover. That can be achieved in two ways: through recruitment and retention—my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) has much to say on that, and I urge the Government to listen—and through reducing our commitments elsewhere. A role clearly exists for other European countries in that regard, particularly in the Balkans.
	It is vital to reorganise the Territorial Army to meet the extra commitment of homeland defence. I shall not go into the details, but the TA is ideally suited to the task, and we should look to the example of the national guard in the United States.
	It is also crucial to remember the importance of conventional warfare. The Gulf is a good example of how such warfare can arise rapidly, particularly in this era. Conventional warfare is also the best preparation for our troops taking part in expeditionary warfare. Expeditionary warfare situations are broadly similar to those associated with conventional warfare, and conventional equipment—particularly tanks and helicopters—can also be used in the war against terrorism.
	As I have said in previous such debates, it is easy to start a war but difficult to bring it to a successful conclusion. The Government and our armed forces have made a good start in tackling the threat of terrorism, but many more challenges lie ahead. We in the United Kingdom are lucky to have the finest armed forces in the world. It is surely incumbent on us as politicians to ensure that they are deployed as effectively as possible to meet this new threat.

Jim Knight: Given the time, I shall restrict my comments to the resourcing of the armed forces. There is no doubt that, in defence as much as anywhere else, one gets what one pays for. The events of 11 September had an enormous impact, and as others have said, the reverberations will be felt long into the future. On that day, the strategic defence review's omission to treat seriously the asymmetric threat was exposed as a fundamental flaw, and I support the Government in committing to a new chapter for the SDR. I would strongly argue, however, that a new chapter requires a new tranche of money.
	In September, the Prime Minister spoke of a three-pronged approach—humanitarian, diplomatic and military, as the Chairman of the Select Committee reminded us—in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States. It is highly appropriate to continue that approach. Our diplomatic efforts are assisted by the stick of the military and the carrot of development assistance.
	Indeed, the ability of our armed forces in peacekeeping and peacemaking is unrivalled in the world. They are currently deployed in 80 different countries, including in some substantial peacekeeping roles. That is certainly placing a considerable strain on them and it is not sustainable indefinitely.
	I am a strong advocate of the United Kingdom fulfilling its international responsibilities to the full. I support the Prime Minister's lead, but if it is to continue, it needs more resources. One use of such resources—apart from expanding capability, which I shall come to briefly at the end—would be an expansion of the reserve forces, as others have mentioned, not to recreate the home guard, but to give some slack to the armed forces and to enable them to perform some specific tasks which more knowledgeable people than I would want to specify. I am particularly attracted to giving the Territorial Army, with its military command and control skills, the expertise and equipment to support the civil power in dealing with nuclear, biological and chemical attack threats in the United Kingdom homeland.
	We also need more resources to increase capability. We cannot hope to catch up with the United States' capability and in many ways it would not be appropriate, but there is a real question over the future development of NATO. It would appear that the experience of action in Kosovo has led the United States to become increasingly wary of joint action. The invoking of article 5 was significant, but it was not followed by significant NATO action in Afghanistan.
	There is no time now to rehearse the arguments around the expansion of NATO or the European security and defence policy, but, clearly, efforts towards capability improvement by the NATO capability conference and the European Union's Helsinki goals have to succeed. We do not want or need a European army to rival the United States, but we need more burden sharing and more coalition action, particularly in Europe's backyard. It would also help to alleviate the strain on UK armed forces if our European allies were sharing our burden. In turn, if we improve our contribution in NATO, I would hope that we could gain more leverage in persuading the United States to increase its development aid and peacekeeping commitment and capability. Recently, when in the United States with the Committee, I consistently raised the point with politicians and others that they should increase their role in terms of international development. I am afraid that I did not come away desperately reassured.
	In summary, there is no greater duty on Government than to ensure the defence of their citizens. In the post-11 September world, it is a much more uncertain environment in terms of homeland and international security. Therefore, we need more resources for our military: for an expansion of the reserves, for a better co-ordinated capability and for the use of the military in harmony with our diplomatic and humanitarian efforts.

Mike Hancock: I am delighted that we are having the opportunity of this debate, but we are all disappointed that it has been cut short. With the modernisation of the House, we should have a Standing Order that allows the House to suspend its Standing Orders to extend a debate for an hour on a night like this, to allow hon. Members to speak. The inability of the managers here to contemplate what would happen is mind-boggling incompetence of the worst order. I am delighted to speak and I will respect the time.
	Many hon. Members have spoken about the events of 11 September and how things have changed and will possibly never be the same again. The real change was that for the first time America's homeland was hit and Americans in real horror faced what many countries have been facing for decades. It brought to the attention of the American people the fact that nowhere was safe from people who will make a determined effort and will respect no one and nothing, least of all their own lives, but will get the greatest satisfaction only from killing as many people as possible in the most horrific circumstances.
	The American response was predictable and natural for most human beings. They had to respond as they did and they have committed us all to a war on terrorism. It has to be a worldwide war on terrorism, not just against those who threaten the American homeland. Terrorists are active right across the world. This war will never end until we respect the democratic and human rights of human beings everywhere. Nations and individuals have a right to play a part in that.
	Many members of the Select Committee on Defence have listened with great interest over the past seven months to what will be done and what has already been done. In all honesty, some of us are disappointed that more has not been achieved in those seven months. The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley)—sadly, he has left the Chamber—spoke about several great threats that most reasonable people would say it is impossible to defend ourselves against. All we can do is hope that the country would have enough of the machinery of its infrastructure left to respond to them. Unfortunately, we would not be in a position to do that at the moment.
	The Defence Committee report exposed clearly that not enough finances are earmarked for the defence of this country and to support the original concept of the strategic defence review, let alone to meet the financial implications of this new chapter. The Government must tell us where they intend to find the money that is needed, and over what period. Great issues are involved, and the consequences of inaction will be grave for the whole nation.
	One other thing occurred on 11 September—a new benchmark in terror was set, as our report readily identifies. Sadly, when benchmarks are set, others will aspire to top them or compete with them. We must look beyond the threat of out-of-control—or much-controlled but out-of-contact—planes crashing into places such as central London or other European capitals. Many of those who gave evidence to the Defence Committee said that we must start to think like the terrorists. Not many rational people can think like terrorists. Nobody in the House would conceive of doing away with their own lives and taking several thousand others with them. It is very difficult to put oneself in the mind of a terrorist and thus to understand one's opponent. It is not comparable with fighting an opposing army who might be subject to the same disciplines as we are.
	We do not even know about these terrorists—their organisations are still in the building stage. However, we know that they have an ability to deliver weapons of mass destruction. Whatever weapons those might be—they are on the shelf in some instances—those involved are just months, if not weeks, away from being able to put them together. Some of those who gave evidence to the Committee stressed how easy it would be to make a cheap, low-grade nuclear weapon. Chemical weapons could easily be deployed once people had the materials to put together the mechanics. We must be eternally vigilant.
	When the Select Committee visited the United States, it was obvious that one of the big deficiencies that allowed its back door to open was that the intelligence agencies were not talking to each other effectively. They all claimed some sort of knowledge but it was not universally shared. There was no real co-ordination of the material being gathered. It is no good saying, after the event, "He over there knew a bit, she over there knew a bit, and somebody in another country was putting together parts of the jigsaw."
	We must be relentless in focusing on those issues on which we can deliver. As many hon. Members have said, we must have armed forces of whom we can be proud, but they are over-stretched, and they need further financial and human resources. Intelligence services need to be beefed up and have more money spent on them, but we must make sure that they are not so jealous of the resources at their disposal that they are not prepared to share them early enough to allow a properly measured reaction. As at least one hon. Member has suggested, on some occasions the best form of defence is the pre-emptive strike. Sadly, I am sure that in the next decade or so we will, as a nation, have to come face to face with the fear and the consequences of having to take those decisions.

Harry Cohen: When a pre-emptive strike is made against another country, it implies an absolute disregard for international law. Is the hon. Gentleman in agreement with such a disregard?

Mike Hancock: No; I am not, but there comes a time when it can be necessary to make a pre-emptive strike, as a measure of last resort. If it had been possible to prevent the attacks on New York because intelligence told us that a group of individuals were prepared to carry out those attacks and were being shielded by another nation, there is a legitimate argument that they could and should have been taken out before they could unleash their doom and gloom on the whole world.
	We must appreciate that we in this place have a duty to protect our nation, and that that protection has a cost: a human cost and a resource cost. The Government owe it, not just to the Defence Committee and its report, but to the nation, to ensure that the defence of the nation is properly financed and resourced over a period sufficient to allow us all to have confidence that we shall not ask the men and women who defend our country to do it on the cheap.

Rachel Squire: I shall simply mention three subjects; the first is homeland defence.
	The Defence Committee said in its report on the strategic defence review that it was worried that the review might be too foreign-policy-led, which could lead to a neglect of the level of insurance needed for home defence. The events of 11 September have made us all think again about that statement, without wishing to arouse undue public concern. However, it is clear, from the report that we are debating tonight and the evidence that we have heard, that more needs to be done, and that although it would be wrong to rush ahead and engage in all sorts of measures of homeland defence without debating and considering them properly, there is a concern that some aspects have not been given sufficient priority in the months since 11 September.
	Remaining on the subject of homeland defence, much has been said about reserves and the national guard. I admit to the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) that I have still to be persuaded that we should take the national guard route. I prefer to be more traditional, and to consider and debate instead how we may increase the size and role of the reserves. I believe that many hon. Members, especially Labour Members, recognise that with hindsight the strategic defence review should not have made its recommendations to reduce the reserves, and I would or will welcome far more debate on the exact role that they can play.

Mark Francois: I thank the hon. Lady for her courtesy in giving way. I shall be brief. The SDR took away many Territorial Army infantry battalions. I speak as an ex-TA infantry officer. Does the hon. Lady think that what happened on 11 September gives the Government a legitimate reason to revise that mistake and to restore the number of those TA infantry battalions that could be optimised for home defence?

Rachel Squire: I certainly think that it gives, and should give, the Government the opportunity to revise the conclusions that they reached in the strategic defence review, but I will not commit myself by saying how many additional battalions there should be. I do not know enough to do so.
	Secondly, like other hon. Members I welcome the additional money that has been set aside in the spring supplementary estimates for the Ministry of Defence, but I fervently hope that it will not be the last. During the Defence Committee's visit to the United States recently, we were continually reminded that the US defence budget increase was bigger than our entire Budget. I believe that we all recognise that it is crucial to the future of NATO that the European allies increase their financial commitments to that organisation, and that it is crucial to the standing and role of our armed forces that we give them the necessary resources.
	The third issue, which I shall touch on briefly, is the current discussion about Iraq, which goes to the heart of the strategic issue of how the United Kingdom can and should support the United States and how we can contribute most effectively to the fight against terrorism. The Select Committee has been very clear in our view that terrorism cannot be defeated by force alone. Reference has already been made to Iraq, and I shall not go into the possibilities on this occasion, but I want to refer to my concern about our armed forces' existing operational commitments.
	Frankly, we should not consider committing our armed forces to any additional operation unless we consider reducing their existing commitments. Many hon. Members share the concern that they are already stretched, and it does not seem as though they will be able to hand over the lead of the interim force in Afghanistan in three months' time. It has become clear this week, with the deaths of members of the American armed forces, that the situation in Afghanistan is far from stable.
	We are also concerned about Macedonia and whether it, too, could turn into a tinder box. We should remember what the Chief of the Defence Staff said in a lecture at the Royal United Services Institute in December:
	"Quite simply, we cannot be 'all seeing' all the time—we simply do not have the resources."
	I look forward to fuller and more regular debates on the many issues that we need to address.

Patrick Mercer: May I start by declaring my interest as a member of the Regular Army Reserve of Officers and a trustee of my former regiment's association? I shall be as brief as I possibly can and will try not to iterate the strategic points that have been made by so many hon. Members before me. The whole thing comes down to a question of money. However, it is not a question of just increasing the amount of money dedicated; it is a question of spending that money cleverly and in a wise and measured fashion.
	I draw the Minister's attention to an excellent organisation that used to exist—the Home Service Force. In many ways, it was laughed at and called, "Dad's Army", but it was extremely cheap, extremely effective and perfectly organised for key-point protection. The Territorial Army may not want to undertake that task. If we were to consider arming the Home Service Force with weapons such as Rapier or Blowpipe, perhaps it could become a real force multiplier. Before I am laughed out of court on that point in terms of technology, hon. Members should bear in mind the fact that Yeomanry soldiers are expected to man the Challenger 2 fleet, so there is no reason why the Home Service Force should not take up the role that I suggest.
	I shall make the point again about the very welcome introduction, or conversion, of 2 and 52 Brigades and draw attention to the excellent points made by the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby) about the training of our conventional regiments to the same standards as those that we have come to expect from the Royal Marines and the Parachute Regiment. Our conventional regiments are fine and excellent organisations and changing 2 and 52 Brigades to infantry brigades makes that point entirely. I urge the Minister to look hard at equipping those brigades with a proper headquarters, and with organic artillery and sappers, to make them deployable so that they, too, can take their place in the order of battle in the field.
	I shall move on quickly to the use of intelligence. We have seen how the 3rd Military Intelligence Battalion has played its part in this battle, but I ask the Minister to consider the flexibility of our intelligence reservists.
	Last and perhaps most contentiously, I should like to draw attention to the activities of our Special Air Service—a handful of men whose activities are rarely talked about. I do not intend to intrude into their modus operandi or exactly what they have been achieving in Afghanistan. I would say this, however; currently, some of the hardest fighting of the Afghanistan campaign is going on. As far as I am aware, there are no British forces involved at the cutting edge of this campaign at the moment. Without letting too many cats out of the bag, I strongly suspect that that is because the tiny numbers of our special forces involved over there are exhausted.
	I draw the Minister's attention to the operations of R Squadron of 22 SAS and the flexibility that that organisation provides. I would like him to look also at the operations of 21 and 23 SAS, the two Territorial regiments that support 22 SAS. It is entirely feasible that we should expand both the Territorial and reserve base of the SAS. There are any number of ex-Territorial soldiers of regular battalions, the parachute regiments or even the Royal Marine Reserve who are ready and willing to serve in an expanded Territorial or reserve capacity inside the SAS.
	I would also suggest—I may be preaching the unpreachable—that we expand the SAS. "It is not possible," I hear the Army cry. It has been done—most effectively, for the campaign in Northern Ireland, where an adjunct was added to the SAS precisely for that campaign. The laurels of that organisation are very infrequently polished but, by golly, they are there for all to see.
	The SAS, rightly, has high standards, as anyone who saw the programme recently that asked "Are you tough enough for the SAS?" will know. I strongly suspect that I am not, but there we are. The fact remains that there are lots of people who are willing to give it a go. If the mentality of "many are called but few are chosen" can be expanded, and if flexibility can be given to the Army's style of recruiting its select and best soldiers, I believe that it would be more than possible to expand the SAS, perhaps by 100 per cent. I urge the Minister to look at that idea in some detail.
	Our forces are, without doubt, the best in the world and I pay tribute to them, just as every other right hon. and hon. Member in the Chamber today has done. But the fact remains that, nearly six months after 11 September, we have seen the United States gird its loins for war, motivate and mobilise its reserve and dedicate $48 billion to expanded defence spending. Nearly six months on, this country has—a discussion document. Discussion documents do not stop bullets; discussion documents do not stop terrorists. We need deeds, not words.

Eric Joyce: I want to say something about a man who was born and educated in Britain, who attended a British public school and the London School of Economics and who is, as I understand it, still a British citizen. He stands accused of complicity in cutting the throat of and beheading a journalist and videoing the whole process for posterity. The individual, Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, has not been tried and found guilty, I should stress—I suppose. But he has shown a marked reluctance to dissociate himself from the slaughter.
	We also know, or suspect, that there are other individuals who live in the UK, or who have at times done so, who have, or may have, similar tendencies. There are no Scottish National party Members present, but I should point out that an incident in the past few weeks has shown that there are people at the low end of that spectrum who have a pretty low tolerance, too.
	Sometimes a debate in the Chamber—not today, I hasten to add—reflects a reluctance on the part of some people to recognise the nature of the threat and the need to take decisive action to counter that kind of threat, not only in the UK but across the world. Sometimes questions raised, and the manner in which they are raised in the Chamber, are characterised by an unhealthy anti-Americanism. They suggest at times that people do not engage fully with the reality of the brutal mindset that characterises those who are prepared to engage in most horrible murder for their own aggrandisement, either on this earth or elsewhere.
	That tendency, when it expresses itself, has the potential to miseducate people into thinking that it is possible to intervene in human rights abuses or violent breaches of security but always to do so bloodlessly. Well, it is not. The overwhelming majority of people in this country and, indeed, in the House, including Labour Members, support the Government's determination not to act precipitately on international terrorism and on threats to our security. We want them instead to act decisively when and if the situation merits it.

Harry Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce) referred to Mr. Sheikh in Pakistan. I want to put it on the record that he and his parents are my constituents. The key consideration is that he get a fair trial.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is a matter of debate, not a point of order.

James Gray: I begin by paying tribute to what the men and women of our armed services have done in the war against terrorism. They have carried out their roles well and we have perhaps not praised them enough. My hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) speaks from experience. He reminded us that everyone will be thinking of the troops in action at Gardez, and we offer our profound sympathies to the families of the Americans lost in the shootings at Kabul and of the Germans and Danes killed on bomb disposal duties yesterday.
	The debate has been of a high quality despite, or perhaps because of, its truncated nature. As always, I greatly enjoyed the Victor Meldrew of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George). I also enjoyed the contributions of the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley). They all spoke with great knowledge of and passion for defence.
	The debate comes at a crucial moment. Defence budgets are giving every sign of being stretched to, or possibly beyond, their limits. That has been the underlying theme of the debate. It was interesting to see how many Labour Members spoke about overstretched troops, underspending and people doing too much for too little. The hon. Members for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby) and for South Dorset (Jim Knight) in particular mentioned those problems. The reality is that we appear to be doing too much with too little. That cannot go on for ever. I hope that the Minister listened carefully to the many Labour Back Benchers who made that point passionately.
	Will the Minister clarify one or two technical details on the accounts? What was the out-turn of last year's spending? I understood that there was an underspend of £72 million, and was surprised to see a report in The Independent this week, with the headline "Brown calls in auditors to scrutinise spending", which said that the underspend was £500 million.

Lewis Moonie: Wrong.

James Gray: If the Minister is right perhaps that is another example of the Chancellor briefing the newspapers in a certain way to win a particular battle. The Independent goes on to quote sources within the Ministry of Defence as saying that the Chancellor
	"is squaring up for a battle with . . . the Defence Secretary."
	The article says that the Chancellor
	"is deeply sceptical about MoD demands for extra funds to meet the new threat of international terrorism".
	The Minister says that the report is inaccurate, so he must tell us where it came from and assure us that the Chancellor is as enthusiastic as he is to spend the money necessary to win the war against terrorism.
	There is another element to defence finances. In November, the Chancellor announced new money to pay for the campaign in Afghanistan. He said:
	"I can report that for new equipment and immediate operational requirements an additional £100 million has been made available to the Ministry of Defence."—[Official Report, 27 November 2001; Vol. 375, c. 834.]
	In a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), dated 26 February, he said that there was a further £55 million, making a total of £155 million. Is that new money or does it partly come from the previous year's underspend, in which case it is another blatant example of new Labour's double counting?
	What does the Minister intend to do replace the £250 million capital receipt that he may not now get from the botched privatisation of QinetiQ announced in that most embarrassing U-turn yesterday? Has the Treasury agreed to take the hit, or will the money have to come out of defence budgets? Is he planning to write off the staggering £15 million that he wasted on consultants on the botched privatisation? Guess who advised him on it? It was none other than new Labour's close friends, Arthur Andersen, to which the Ministry of Defence has paid £7 million so far. Is the money coming from our front-line capabilities?
	The confusion over where the money to pay for the Afghanistan campaign is to come from is compounded by a letter from the Minister to my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Defence dated 27 February in which he says:
	"we estimate the total extra cost in relation to Afghanistan in Financial Year 2001-2002 to be some £261 million."
	If that is so, will the Minister tell us how he has paid for it? Has it come from the previous year's underspend or the Chancellor's £155 million—if that is indeed new money—or has it perhaps been found by moving money from capital to current accounts? The spring estimates seem to confirm the latter.
	There is a muddle, and the Minister needs to tell us today in words of one syllable how much has so far been spent on the war in Afghanistan, precisely how that has been funded, how much he intends to spend in the year ahead and how he will pay for that. The Opposition suspect that all this accountancy fudging is designed to cover up the reality of some deep and damaging cuts in defence expenditure in general. One or two worrying examples of that have been announced in the past few weeks.
	The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) talked about deep cuts in the Territorial Army as a result of the strategic defence review. I am proud to be wearing the tie of the Honourable Artillery Company today. On top of that cut, we have seen the moth-balling of 5 squadron of the Tornados and of the 32 Sea Harriers, and the decimation of the Fleet Air Arm.
	A statutory instrument was sneaked through the House the other day under the guise of giving the Army base repair organisation greater freedom to operate commercially, whereas in fact it meant the cutting of 700 jobs in that organisation. We heard today—I hope that the Minister is listening and will answer this point—of the premature withdrawal of HMS Fearless, our last Royal Navy assault vessel. Let us hope that we do not need it in the troubles that lie ahead.
	What is more, as my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid–Kent (Hugh Robertson) said, the long-feared "procurement bow-wave" in the MOD seems to be becoming ever more a reality, as evidenced by delays in the deployment of new equipment such as the A400M and the Nimrod MRA4. They are the latest examples, but there are of course many others. If, as it appears, Ministers cannot fund current operations without deep and damaging cuts in our defence capabilities, what hope have we of funding the challenges that might lie ahead?
	In contrast to the hon. Members for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) and for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) and their party, the Conservative Opposition are proud of the fact that we have stood shoulder to shoulder with the Government in their fight against terrorism so far, and shoulder to shoulder with the United States Government in their war against terrorism—and we intend to continue to do so. If we are to do so—my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling warned us about this—and if challenges lie ahead, we need to know how the Government can say that they intend to do all kinds of things but appear, first, not to be funding them properly, and secondly and even worse, to be making some deep and damaging cuts in our defence capabilities. That simply will not do. They cannot have it both ways.
	I was not the least encouraged by the Secretary of State's recent comment that
	"I shall certainly be putting my case to the Chancellor, but I recognise it will have to sit alongside equally vigorous cases presented by my colleagues in health, education, public transport and so on."
	Unnamed defence sources have said:
	"We are in the middle of a battle royal with the Treasury."
	Rumours abounded last year that the Chancellor was seeking up to £1.5 billion of cuts in the defence budget. The Minister owes it to the House to make it clear this evening that that is not what is about to happen.
	This debate is the Minister's opportunity to reassure us that he and, perhaps more importantly, the Chancellor are resolutely determined to fund our excellent armed forces properly in the ever more challenging tasks that lie ahead. If we are to defeat international terrorism—we are as determined as the Minister to do so—the effort in that direction must be properly funded.

Lewis Moonie: One of the misfortunes of defence debates is that, irrespective of their title, we always seem to cover all defence matters. I shall do my best to reply to all the points that have been raised.
	This debate takes place against a background of continuing activity and danger for our armed forces in Afghanistan. The Taliban and the al-Qaeda terrorists whom they harbour have been reduced to scattered remnants, but that is not to say that they are no longer a threat, as we see from current operations against Gardez. Like the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the courage of all coalition soldiers fighting there, and to offer my condolences to the families of those—American and Afghan—who have died fighting to free Afghanistan and the world from the threat of terrorism.
	On the subject of time, let me point out that we have at least four more days of defence debates in which hon. Members will be able to speak about anything they fancy. Defence gets a fairly generous allocation of time: we have had at least three full days, perhaps four, on the war against terrorism since it started. We have adequate time to debate defence issues. Although it is disappointing that we did not get our full time today, the environment is considered equally important by many hon. Members, and it does not get the same amount of time as defence.
	As for the timing of our reply, I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) for the time it took. A balance has to be struck between speed and helpfulness, and we tried to make our reply as helpful as possible on this occasion.
	As this is an estimates day, I had better say something about the estimates, if only to correct the misapprehensions of Opposition Front Benchers. In the current financial year, we shall incur £261 million in additional costs through our operations in Afghanistan. The bulk of that—some £115 million—is attributable to Operation Veritas, our contribution to the global coalition's operations against international terrorism. That figure covers operating costs—fuel, transport, stores and so on—that we would not otherwise have faced. We also expect to generate another £80 million in similar costs for Operation Fingal, the United Kingdom's element of the international security assistance force that we currently lead in Kabul. The bulk of the remainder—some £57 million—represents capital costs for urgent operational requirements. The final £9 million represents "non-cash costs". That is all new money.
	In addition to that, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State announced on 26 February that the Treasury had agreed to add a further £55 million to the £100 million already made available for capital costs arising from urgent operational requirements. That gives a total of £155 million in new money of which, as I have said, we have so far spent £57 million on capital costs. The subject is complicated, but I assure the House that the money involved is new money.
	Turning to the privatisation of QinetiQ, I was involved in that issue yesterday, and despite my best efforts some of the newspapers appear to have picked up my remarks wrongly. Only an idiot would have proposed that we continue on the preferred course of a stock market placing, even though, at the time that it was made, the proposal was perfectly reasonable. Although—with apologies to hon. Members from the minority parties—I can imagine a few idiots on the Opposition Benches continuing blindly on that course, we could not do so. We have decided to go for a trade placement instead, which is by far the safest course of action. We will get the money that we require from the sale, and QinetiQ will get the freedom that it needs to grow and to develop its business.
	I cannot go into detail in response to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws), save to say that extensive work is being done on co-operation among our security forces. I shall discuss the action we are taking on CBN—chemical, biological and nuclear—risks later. Active civil contingency links exist and are being strengthened. It has been possible to do quite a lot along those lines.
	Conflict prevention is at the centre of our efforts, especially in Africa. We are already working cross- departmentally. The three Departments that the hon. Gentleman mentioned—the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development—are doing a great deal of work on conflict prevention and resolution in that continent. In addition, extensive work is being done in eastern Europe and central Asia. We are very active in that respect.
	As for the calls to increase reserve forces, we have spent a great deal of time and effort trying to bring our reserve forces much closer to the front line. I do not want that effort to be diluted by attempts to add roles that are well beneath the capabilities in which we now train our reserves to participate. We are using our reserves and integrating them into our forces. To be frank, that is by far the most cost-effective way in which to provide surge capability in many of our units. The House will be aware that in a parliamentary answer today I pointed out that a further compulsory call-out of 49 Royal Auxiliary Air Force personal will be made to assist air transport movements in support of our ongoing work in Afghanistan.
	I shall try in the limited time available to respond to the specific points made without repeating myself. My right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South was right in his introductory remarks. The same point was made by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) and others. The risks from many chemical and biological threats are low, but the consequences are indeed terrible.
	The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling might be interested to know that, as a specialist in public health, I have independently come to the conclusion that plague is an exceptionally dangerous organism, as he might well have expected. However, there are two positive aspects. One is that we are developing what appears to be a very effective vaccine, which will be available in the next two years. That will be the first time that a reliable vaccine has been available. Secondly, plague is an exceptionally difficult organism to grow and certainly to deliver. Therefore I would assess that the threat still involves a combination of opportunity and means, and as the product of the two is so difficult to achieve, the threat of plague remains very low, compared with other biologically active agents.
	We have decided that Fearless will be stood down at the end of its current engagement, instead of going on until January or February next year. Any Department must make decisions about the most cost-effective way to use its resources, and it would not have been cost-effective, in my opinion and that of my colleagues, and according to the advice of our senior staff, to have continued a 37-year-old vessel, excellent though its service has been, for the next six months, given the extra resources that would be required. Fearless is our last steam-powered ship, and I am sorry to see her go. Her service and that of her crew has been sterling, and the crew will give us further good service on Albion and Bulwark when they come into service in 2003.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang) spoke cogently about the language of priorities and of the need to fund the level of activity that we wish to carry out. I agree with him. I cannot predict the outcome of discussions on the Budget, much as the hon. Member for North Wiltshire might wish me to second-guess the process. It is still going on and we will defend our corner vigorously, but there must be an exact match between the commitments that we give and the resources that we offer up to meet them.
	In passing, I should point out that we are partly the victims of our own success. Smart procurement has worked. Programmes are now on time and the slack in the system, which was available in the MOD budget year after year, sadly—or perhaps gladly—is no longer with us. That makes things much more difficult.

Kevan Jones: With reference to the new chapter of SDR, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital that finances are not an obstacle to our doing what is necessary to fight the war against terrorism?

Lewis Moonie: I entirely agree that resources must be made available to meet any new commitments, unless those commitments turn out to be substitutes for things that we do at present and we find that they are not necessary. I am not trying to suggest that we have yet been able to find anything like that, but any rational being must admit that there is at least a logical possibility that we would be able to do so. Should major new requirements come along, we will have to consider the matter closely.
	I am interested in the possibility of the home defence service being re-activated, with considerably greater numbers of teeth than it ever had or were ever envisaged for it. If we think that static guarding is the answer for certain installations—I remain to be convinced of that—we will have to find some way of implementing it.
	The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling was the only person whom I have heard in any of the debates so far mention the effectiveness of our co-ordinating officers in Tampa, Florida. That has proved itself, just as the permanent joint headquarters in the UK has done. It has shown how effective it is to co-ordinate on the ground, right at the centre of operations. Its value has been proved time and again, and I pay tribute to the officers who serve there. We shall have to do that in future, although rather than regularise it we will probably have to do it on an ad hoc basis.
	There were other thoughtful contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby) and the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson), who made a good point about ISTAR. We are identifying ways of identifying friend and foe, and we will continue to do so as quickly as possible.
	It being Seven o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker, proceeded to put forthwith the deferred Question relating to Estimates which he was directed to put at that hour, pursuant to paragraphs (4) and (5) of Standing Order No. 54 (Consideration of estimates).
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That further resources, not exceeding £3,020,000, be authorised for use during the year ending on 31st March 2002, and that a sum, not exceeding £3,020,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund for the year ending on 31st March 2002 for expenditure by HM Treasury.
	It being after Seven o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker proceeded to put forthwith the Questions relating to Estimates which he was directed to put at that hour, pursuant paragraphs (1) and (3) of Standing Order No. 55 (Questions on voting of estimates, &c.) and Order [20 November 2000].

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

Resolved,
	That further resources, not exceeding £2,058,352,000, be authorised for use during the year ending on 31st March 2002, and that a sum, not exceeding £1,636,556,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund for the year ending on 31st March 2002 for expenditure by the Ministry of Defence.

ESTIMATES, 2002-03 (NAVY) VOTE A

Resolved,
	That during the year ending on 31st March 2003 a number not exceeding 46,025 all ranks be maintained for Naval Service, a number not exceeding 17,340 for service in the Reserve Naval and Marine Forces, and a number not exceeding 250 for service as Special Members of the Reserve Naval Forces under Part V of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.

ESTIMATES, 2002-03 (ARMY) VOTE A

Resolved,
	That during the year ending on 31st March 2003 a number not exceeding 128,195 all ranks be maintained for Army Service, a number not exceeding 84,000 for service in the Reserve Land Forces, and a number not exceeding 6,000 for service as Special Members of the Reserve Land Forces under Part V of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.

ESTIMATES, 2002-03 (AIR) VOTE A

Resolved,
	That during the year ending on 31st March 2003 a number not exceeding 57,415 all ranks be maintained for Air Force Service, a number not exceeding 23,050 for service in the Reserve Air Forces, and a number not exceeding 550 for service as Special Members of the Reserve Air Forces under Part V of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.

ESTIMATES, EXCESSES, 2000-01

Resolved,
	That a sum, not exceeding £3,097,059.33, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to make good excesses of certain grants for defence and civil services for the year ended on 31st March 2001, as set out in HC 635.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 2001-02

Resolved,
	That further resources, not exceeding £4,531,170,000, be authorised for use for defence and civil services for the year ending on 31st March 2002, and that a further sum, not exceeding £3,727,881,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to meet the cost of defence and civil services for the year ending on 31st March 2002, as set out in HC 636.
	Ordered,
	That a Bill be brought in on the foregoing resolutions: And that the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Andrew Smith, Dawn Primarolo, Ruth Kelly and Mr. Paul Boateng do prepare and bring it in.

Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill

Mr. Paul Boateng accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31st March 2001 and 2002: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 8 March, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 65].

John Austin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope not to delay the House too long. My point of order is further to that which was raised last night by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), to whom I have given notice of my intention of raising this matter tonight. I do not question the ruling given by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which I believe was wholly appropriate to the narrow point that the hon. Lady raised, but the matter has wider implications concerning the jurisdiction of the courts and the rights and privileges of hon. Members.
	The hon. Lady referred to an injunction that prevented local newspapers from identifying an individual and a hospital, but she went on to identify that hospital, which was formerly situated in my constituency and is now located in that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), and is the main district general hospital serving his constituency and mine, and Eltham. As far as I can ascertain, the hon. Lady made no attempt to give prior notice to my right hon. Friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) or I of her intention to raise the issue. I believe that that was a discourtesy.
	A newspaper carried a story in all its 12 editions, rather than only the local and Greenwich and Woolwich editions, because as it said,
	"publishing the story in just one edition and identifying the area would have contravened the judge's court order".
	I make no comment on the wisdom or otherwise of the injunction or of the trust in seeking it, but the identification of the hospital on the Floor of the House has clearly breached the injunction, as local and national newspapers may now publish what the hon. Lady said and the name of the hospital.
	I recognise the importance of the right of MPs to freedom of speech and the importance of parliamentary privilege, and I recognise and support the intentions of article 9 of the Bill of Rights, but that should be seen in the light of rules surrounding sub judice matters and the courts. Although this issue is not technically sub judice because the courts have already made a decision, there is an important principle that courts should not seek to prevent Members from expressing their views, but that neither should Members subvert decisions of the courts.
	I would not expect a substantive answer tonight, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I am aware that there is currently a case before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, but I should be grateful if you could give the matter your careful consideration and advise hon. Members accordingly on the use or abuse of privilege in this context.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (John Austin) for giving me notice that he would be raising that point of order. I can in fact give him a fairly definitive answer in terms that may not be wholly unexpected. As the hon. Gentleman recognises, hon. Members enjoy freedom of speech in this House, and I can therefore advise him that nothing disorderly has occurred. However, it is always hoped that hon. Members will be mindful of the consequences of remarks that they make about such cases.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Town and Country Planning

That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2002, which were laid before this House on 12th February, be approved.—[Angela Smith.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Electricity

That the draft Renewables Obligation Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.—[Angela Smith.]
	Question agreed to.

PETITIONS
	 — 
	New Park Campsite

Julian Lewis: The villagers of Brockenhurst in the New Forest, East constituency are overwhelmingly against the principle of the creation of a campsite at New Park, Brockenhurst. Under the auspices of the parish council, no fewer than 1,719 out of 2,652 people on the electoral roll have signed this petition. Ninety-five per cent. of those contacted signed it and 65 per cent. of the electorate as a whole have therefore expressed support for the petition of residents of Brockenhurst, which states:
	That the Forestry Commission proposes to close the existing campsite at Hollands Wood and to open a new campsite at New Park, that the proposed new campsite will be detrimental to the surrounding environment, and that they oppose the principle of the Forestry Commission's proposals.
	The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Forestry Commission not to proceed with its proposal to open a campsite at New Park.
	And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
	To lie upon the Table.

Secondary School, Sittingbourne

Derek Wyatt: The petition of the residents of Sittingbourne declares:
	That there is an urgent need to build a new secondary school on the north side of Sittingbourne to meet the needs of young people in north Sittingbourne, Milton Regis, Kemsley and the villages of Iwade and Lower Halstow. Such a development is necessary to guarantee parental choice, to develop community awareness and to avoid transport chaos in the centre of Sittingbourne.
	The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons call on the Department for Education and Skills and Kent county council to consider as a matter of urgency the planning and siting of a new secondary school in north Sittingbourne.
	And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
	To lie upon the Table.

Dronfield School

Harry Barnes: The petition that I am presenting seeks to put in place arrangements to turn the split-site school at Dronfield, where my own children went to school, into a single-site school, because the Gosforth site building is dropping to bits and was recently closed due to wind and rain. The petition of residents of Dronfield and district, which I support as the rational alternative, declares:
	That the teachers, staff and governors of the Dronfield school help provide an excellent education for the young people of Dronfield; that the performance of the Dronfield school will improve now it has recently become a technology college; that standards at the Dronfield school will be further assisted if the existing two-site facility can be brought together on a single site; that spending £1.5 million on maintaining the Gosforth site over the next five years, as part of a split-site school, does not represent good value for money; and that a failure to move to a single site would be an enormous lost opportunity.
	The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to approve the proposals submitted by Derbyshire county council for a scheme to consolidate the Dronfield school on a single site.
	And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
	To lie upon the Table.

KENT AND CANTERBURY HOSPITAL

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Angela Smith.]

Julian Brazier: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise once again the future of Kent and Canterbury hospital and of acute health services in east Kent. I am also grateful to my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) and the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt), for coming to support me here.
	Since my last Adjournment debate, four formal options have been put forward and the consultation period has just closed. The crisis in our hospitals has worsened. I believe that all four options put out to consultation are dangerous, and that the formulation of those options—the process before consultation—was hopelessly flawed.
	Time restricts me to describing just four factors this evening. The first is the failure of East Kent health authority and the East Kent Hospitals Trust to relate the issue of capacity to that of affordability. The second is their failure to include cancer. The third is the lack of support for, and consultation with, the medical and nursing staff, and the fourth is the issue of access.
	Let us start with capacity and cost. Last year, 81 consultants—almost half of those in all three sites in east Kent—supported a motion stating that the quality of patient care was being undermined by a shortage of capacity. More than four fifths of junior doctors across the three sites signed a letter making a similar point. Since then the position has worsened. Individual cases, such as those of 97-year-old Connie Jones and 82-year-old Arnhem veteran Bill Holman, both of whom were left for two nights on trolleys in our accident and emergency unit, are sad examples of the worsening crisis. The queues outside the casualty departments at all three east Kent hospitals continue to grow. On some nights recently, we have had as many as 50 trolleys in the Kent and Canterbury hospital casualty department. Colin Baker, the distinguished ITN war correspondent making a programme for Trevor MacDonald, said that the situation was as bad as a Balkan battle zone. He should know; he was wounded in one.
	Elective surgery has been disrupted to the extent that operating theatres are under-utilised due to a lack of beds. I shall give one example from the many. Yesterday I received a pitiful letter from a constituent who has had her hysterectomy operation—needed because of desperate bleeding—cancelled for the fourth time. Surely the most important issue for the consultation should have been to show how the revenue costs of each capital option would allow room for the extra beds that we so desperately need. Instead, all the options have been presented without any capital costing. There are no financial figures. Instead, the management continue to promise that their plans will allow for 175 extra beds. Asked about funding, they simply say that that is a matter for their political masters.
	It will come as no surprise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or to the lady Minister, whom I welcome to her place, to hear that it is not my job to defend a Labour Government. It would, however, place an unreasonable demand on any Minister of any Government if the management were simply to say that they were going to engage in a programme of colossal capital spending—with all the revenue implications that that entails—and that the funding consequences were a matter for Ministers.
	Estimates for a less radical option A—the so-called Dobson option—have risen from £102 million to £150 million. The average overrun for larger private finance initiatives has been about 30 per cent., which would raise £150 million to £200 million. However, that would fall a long way short of the cost of the most radical option, option D. A typical annual PFI costs about 10 per cent. At a time when the south eastern NHS budget is desperately overstretched, can such a burden be afforded, even without adding any of the extra beds that we desperately need now?
	My second point is that the cancer centre has not been included in the consultation process, although the document includes an appendix on cancer and Professor James, the director of cancer services in Kent, appeared at all the consultation meetings. He said again and again that he was determined to keep a full cancer centre in East Kent. He further told us that all three oncologists at Kent and Canterbury hospital—he referred to them by name—fully supported him and the plans in the document. Above all, he stressed that, with an oncologist post vacant, they could keep the oncology centre going with its new linear accelerator only if a positive atmosphere was generated to attract new blood to Canterbury, and we all agreed on that last point.
	Unfortunately, the truth is that two of the three consultants to whom Professor James referred had already put their vehement opposition to the proposals in writing in public letters some weeks before, and the Minister has those letters. They pointed out the clinical dangers in the approach. I understand that the third oncologist has now denounced Professor James for misleading the public about her views.
	The national cancer director, following a visit to the Canterbury oncology centre, has also refused to endorse the concept. He said in his letter only that "It might work". In fact, the text rules out keeping a cancer centre under two of the four options, and even says:
	"For the longer term it is not possible to guarantee the continuous medical support . . . that is required for safe inpatient radiotherapy and chemotherapy services in Canterbury."
	Is that the positive language that will help to recruit a new oncologist to East Kent's cancer centre? Crucially, the Maidstone and Tonbridge Wells Healthcare Trust, which is responsible for cancer services in Kent, was not a signatory to the document.
	The third issue is the exclusion of so many doctors and nursing staff in the formulation of the four options. No proposal is likely to work unless those that have to deliver it feel committed to the outcome. Obviously, that does not mean total consensus. However, everyone must feel that they had the opportunity to put their point of view, and a reasonably large majority of the doctors and nurses involved must agree with the broad outline of the outcome.
	Mr. McNee is a urology consultant who is based not at the Kent and Canterbury but in Ashford. He said:
	"I am extremely angry about the consultation document. I first came across it at 11th January 02. My clinical director Robert Insali had not seen it until I showed him. . . . At no point has there been any discussion with the body of urology consultants."
	Another Ashford doctor, John Sewell, who for 21 years has been a consultant physician in emergency care, has condemned the proposal on eight grounds ranging from cost to the risk of service collapse. He sent a confidential letter, then courageously scrubbed out the word "confidential" and made it public.
	The pattern among consultants is repeated among the junior doctors. All three East Kent branches of the Royal College of Nursing, Canterbury, Thanet and south eastern, have come out against the proposals in a joint document, which states that
	"the RCN believes that the proposals could fundamentally undermine future quality of care for patients in East Kent, particularly older people".
	They also condemn the failure of the document to cover community services. It seems absurd to do such a radical reappraisal of acute services without covering community services.
	Is this the way to treat dedicated professionals? They are the very people who will have to deliver the quality health care that we need in East Kent in the future. Is that the way options should be formulated?
	Finally, I turn to the question of access. Canterbury is the centre of east Kent, the hub of the bus and rail system. Canterbury and Faversham GPs belong to by far the largest primary care group in east Kent. They have voiced their opposition to the proposals in the strongest possible way. Both Dover and Shepway district councils faxed their replies to me this afternoon, rejecting all four options. One council calls for an independent review, and the other uses similar language. I understand that all the councils in Kent, apart from Ashford, have demanded that the cancer centre be kept in east Kent, and in practice that has to mean that it be kept at Canterbury.
	The independent hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) has asked me to pass on to the House his apologies, as his broken arm prevents him from attending this debate. He is organising a rally for 25 March to get new thinking into emergency provision, based on ideas from the Royal College of Physicians. I hope that Ministers will listen to him.
	In summary, the formulation of the proposals is deeply flawed. Many of the crucial people—the doctors and nurses who have to deliver the services—appear not to have been consulted. The cancer centre was excluded from the process, and its needs were pushed in a cowardly and unsound manner into the back of the document. Issues of access were simply glossed over.
	Above all, the desperate and growing capacity crisis has been simply ignored. A fig leaf of nominal extra beds has been produced, while the authors of the proposals have ducked away from considering whether the proposals will allow us to fund even the existing number of beds, let alone some extra beds.
	When the proposals come before the Minister and the Secretary of State, I urge that they be sent back to East Kent health authority, which will dissolve at the end of the month. I hope that the Minister will ask its successor authority, the new Kent and Medway strategic health authority, to start again with properly formulated proposals based on consultation with the doctors and nurses who will have to implement them.

Derek Wyatt: I congratulate the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) on securing this Adjournment debate. I almost want to call him my hon. Friend, as he has been outstanding in keeping me informed about everything that has happened in this matter. Cross-party support in the matter has been evident for four years, and the hon. Gentleman and I have gone together to see Secretaries of State. We have displayed our anger together, and sometimes we have found it impossible to understand the answers that we have been given.
	At this late stage, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider seriously the points made about cancer by the hon. Member for Canterbury. That is the health service's top priority, and I honestly do not feel that we will have a centre for cancer in east Kent of which we can be proud.
	I also want to draw my hon. Friend the Minister's attention to the fact that the Kent and Canterbury's accident and emergency department is a disgrace. She must recognise that immediately—that is, now. I do not believe that we can be proud of something that is so bad. Are not there hit squads that can be sent in to improve matters, or is no extra funding available? Are there no mobile rooms that we can use to help matters? There must be a way to take people off the trolleys. The A and E provision is demeaning, degrading, disgusting and awful. I ask my hon. Friend to reflect seriously on the urgent answer to the problem. We need that answer tomorrow, not in three or four weeks.
	Finally, is it possible for my hon. Friend the Minister—or the Secretary of State, or another health Minister—to make an unannounced visit to Kent and Canterbury hospital? In that way, the state of the A and E department can be seen. It beggars belief.

Hugh Robertson: I want to make three key points on behalf of my constituents in Faversham—a town of 18,000 people that was not even mentioned in the consultation document.
	The first point has to do with transport. The transport links to Ashford and Margate are atrocious. There is little or no public transport, and Faversham has many elderly or disadvantaged people. Both groups tend to be heavy users of the health service, but in effect they are being disfranchised by the process.
	The second point is that there is no funding to build up local cottage hospitals, such as the Faversham cottage hospital. That hospital could not take over from the Kent and Canterbury, but it could help.
	The third point has to do with cancer care. The out-patient model proposed by East Kent health authority is unproven anywhere in the UK. It has been rejected by all consultants, and by the Royal College of Radiologists. The Maidstone hospital—to which all inpatients would transfer, under the proposals—is already overstretched. The proposed model simply could not cope.
	I shall end by quoting a letter that appeared today in the Faversham Times. It was written by the chairman of the Faversham branch of the Labour party. He said simply this:
	"To people living in Faversham, it is hard to understand why our services appear to be getting worse".
	I could not have put it better myself.

Yvette Cooper: I congratulate the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) on securing a debate on an issue that he has raised many times. I know that he did so in a debate that was replied to by the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears).
	As the hon. Gentleman said, East Kent health authority published a consultation document on 5 December on the modernisation of health services in east Kent. It set out four options for acute-service reconfiguration. As the hon. Gentleman also said, the three-month consultation period ended last week, and the responses are now being considered in the health authority.
	All the options enable the hospital to treat the majority of patients whom it currently sees in its accident and emergency department, and to have a 24-hour nurse-led minor injuries unit as well as providing day surgery and out-patient services, orthopaedic services for older people, community assessment and intermediate care. The options also include provision of a day-care hospital, out-patient clinics, midwifery-led low-risk maternity services and cancer services.
	East Kent will also benefit from an increase in bed numbers as a result of all four options. Each option would involve an increase of at least 175 beds throughout the trust.
	There has been intense consultation, arousing passions and strong views in all parts of the health community and the local community in general. I am advised that staff at Kent and Canterbury hospital were consulted extensively on the shortlisted options between March and August last year, and that staff consultation included one-to-one with consultant staff to review the case for change and the shortlisted options.
	I am also advised that four workshops were held and were well attended by consultant, nursing and therapy staff. Four seminars also took place across east Kent to involve staff in the evaluation of the shortlisted options. All consultant staff, senior nurses, therapists and managers were invited. Three workshops were apparently held in January to review the "network of care" arrangements in east Kent. Members of the clinical policy board and three other lead clinicians, two of them from Canterbury, have worked to specify the relationship between east Kent's hospitals. At the last of the workshops, specialist services were discussed in depth.
	I am advised that the consultation gave all involved an opportunity to comment and express their views. I am also advised that the community health councils were content with the consultation process.
	The exercise was carried out by a joint sub-committee of East Kent health authority and East Kent Hospitals NHS Trust boards, which draws its membership from across the health community. The sub-committee set up a reference group to examine the processes of the consultation to ensure that it had been robust and inclusive, and had allowed all interested groups to have their opinions heard.

Julian Brazier: I hope the Minister realises that I am not criticising the consultation process. I am criticising the formulation of the four options that were presented. The Department has had all the letters I referred to for weeks. How does the Minister—who has sensibly used the phrase "I am advised that"—reconcile the letters with the picture she paints of the putting together of the proposals?

Yvette Cooper: I understand the points that the hon. Gentleman is making. Clearly many of them concern the options themselves, and must therefore be taken into account by the health authority when it considers its responses to the consultation. I am also advised, however, that there were extensive consultations on the shortlisted options before the period between March and August last year, and I understand that the community health councils are content that the consultation process has been robust and proper.
	The process from here on in is that a joint sub-committee of the trust and health authority boards is responsible for considering all responses and making recommendations to both boards by around the end of March. The two boards will then decide how to proceed, and a recommendation will be passed to the new strategic health authority, the Kent and Medway, which will make recommendations to Ministers. It is the boards' responsibility to base their decision on the consultation responses. If community health councils object to the recommendations, they will be referred to Ministers.
	The hon. Gentleman will therefore understand that if we are to ensure that those processes are properly carried out, it would be inappropriate for me to pre-empt not only the boards' decisions but those that Ministers may have to make if the recommendations are referred to them. However, I will attempt to respond to some of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members during the debate.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) asked if Ministers could visit Kent and Canterbury hospital. I can tell him that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, intends to visit the hospital in the coming weeks and will have the chance to listen to views at that time.
	Hon. Members also raised issues of capacity in the area. I can tell them that there has been considerable extra investment in east Kent. I agree that capacity in the area needs to increase, and that East Kent health authority continues to need additional investment, as does the NHS throughout the country. Next year, East Kent health authority will receive an increase of 9.85 per cent. in cash terms, which is an increase of 7.17 per cent. in real terms. The Government are determined to continue those increases in funding because clearly we are dealing with issues of long-term underfunding and lack of capacity throughout the health service. We will continue to address those issues.
	In addition, the Government are providing £845,000 from the modernisation fund to improve patient access schemes in east Kent; £935,000 to help the move to six-day working for day surgery; additional money for dermatology and orthopaedics; £2.1 million to help to ease Kent-wide problems associated with delayed transfers of care; and £250,000 to streamline accident and emergency services and provide support for rapid access to therapies, diagnostics, pharmacies and porters.
	Hon. Members referred to accident and emergency services. The Government have acknowledged the severe pressures on A and E, particularly during the winter months. The trust has acknowledged that Kent and Canterbury hospital has faced considerable pressures, particularly in the A and E department. The Department of Health's winter and emergency services team visited the trust recently. It recognised the excellent work being done by staff at the trust, but identified some areas that must benefit from improvement, and made several recommendations.
	An intensive support team of six people has been identified to work with the trust over the coming months. That team, comprising experienced doctors, nurses and health care professionals, will help to develop plans to modernise the A and E department with emphasis on the clinical governance agenda. It is important to be clear that the issues are not simply additional capacity and investment. We need reform and modernisation to make sure that care is provided in the best possible way and using the most up-to-date methods.
	Hon. Members also referred to cancer services and I can assure them that their points have been heard by Ministers. If community health councils refer these issues to Ministers, they will certainly be considered.

Julian Brazier: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way a second time, but I seek clarification on a further point. The outcome of this will have a profound effect on cancer services, but they are not part of the consultation process and Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells trust was not among the consultees and did not sign the document. Do the community health councils have the legal power to refer those matters to the Secretary of State?

Yvette Cooper: If the matters under consideration as part of that consultation are referred to Ministers by the community health council, Ministers will take account of the points that hon. Members have made in this House about cancer and related issues when they come to consider those subjects.
	The Kent cancer network has looked at the national cancer plan in order to determine the future vision for the delivery of cancer services in Kent. It is clear that cancer services will continue to be provided at a number of hospitals, including the Kent and Canterbury. I am advised that the vast majority of patients requiring cancer services will continue to be treated in Canterbury under each of the four options. The few patients in Kent who need specialist cancer services will continue to be treated in centres that are able to provide the specialist care that they require. That is entirely appropriate and follows good practice and is the most effective means of offering access to high-quality care for all patients.
	Cancer services at Kent and Canterbury hospital are part of the Kent cancer network and it is important that they remain so as part of the national cancer plan, the standards of which ensure high-quality care.
	The cancer strategy for Kent is currently being developed. It will set out the current arrangements and the priorities for future investment. The East Kent Hospitals Trust is working effectively with the Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells trust and the cancer network towards this aim.
	I am advised that in none of the options is it stated that Canterbury will lose its ability to care for cancer patients. The consultation document has given East Kent residents the undertaking that the majority of cancer patients who currently receive treatment there will continue to do so.

Hugh Robertson: Is not the crucial point that even by the trust's own estimates ambulatory or out-patient treatment will account for only 80 per cent. of those currently treated at the Kent and Canterbury? That leaves a significant 20 per cent. of in-patients who will have to go all the way to Maidstone or to other hospitals in London for specialist treatment. That is a significant proportion of patients who will be worse off under this plan at a time when Maidstone, at the other end of my constituency, is telling me that it cannot cope.

Yvette Cooper: Again, I have to say that the issues around the options need to be taken into account first and foremost by the local boards. They must make their decision. It would be wrong for me to pre-empt that process.
	When it comes to cancer patients and cancer care people want to be sure that they are getting the highest quality care, especially for life-threatening conditions. We need to consider issues around access, but also issues around the quality of care. That in the end is what the national cancer plan and the discussion of cancer networks was all about. Those factors need to be taken into account.
	Whatever option in the re-configuration is chosen, the adoption of the national cancer plan will continue to influence and improve the final pattern of services to be delivered. As part of the cancer plan we need more nurses, doctors, radiographers and equipment, and we need to ensure that new drugs are available to those who can benefit from them and that people suffering from cancer get the highest possible quality of care.
	Although many views on reconfiguration issues are being discussed in east Kent, I understand that there is agreement that the issues must be fully discussed and in an informed way. All parties recognise the important need for modernisation and for investment in the area. It is important that the debate has been aired widely and fully, and I know that the hon. Member for Canterbury has striven to do that at every possible opportunity.
	I assure the hon. Gentleman, my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey and other hon. Members that Ministers do not take the turbulence that the different views have created lightly. We consider it seriously and—
	The motion having been made after Seven o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	Adjourned at twenty minutes to Eight o'clock.